Waiting for a friend...

[Candid Bandit]

http://img53.exs.cx/img53/9140/IMG_5161s.jpg (http://img53.exs.cx/img53/6653/IMG_5161.jpg) http://img53.exs.cx/img53/9697/IMG_5171s.jpg (http://img53.exs.cx/img53/504/IMG_5171.jpg) http://img53.exs.cx/img53/8764/IMG_5178s.jpg (http://img53.exs.cx/img53/4848/IMG_5178.jpg)

[defordphoto]

:lol: Are you the S.F. Stalker or something?

[Candid Bandit]

:( No... Quit being so sexist!! If this was a guy then what would it make me? SF Gay stalker??

[Candid Bandit]

I hope you all are not looking at my subjects with any perversion thoughts in mind. If so the I will only post men from now on. Being called a stalker is really an overkill.. Even if you had a little smiley face on it doesn't mean its funny. It only took me like ten seconds on burst mode to take these shots.

[lomond]

Candid,
I like your stuff. Keep it coming.
I don't see it as intrusive, nor is it sexist. Make it male or female.
I just like to see what's happening in the street on the other side of the world.
I think I might be partly respondsible for the attitude you're taking. If so, I'm sorry. :( It was meant in jest. Ignore it.

Cameron

[Candid Bandit]

Candid,
I like your stuff. Keep it coming.
I don't see it as intrusive, nor is it sexist. Make it male or female.
I just like to see what's happening in the street on the other side of the world.
I think I might be partly respondsible for the attitude you're taking. If so, I'm sorry. :( It was meant in jest. Ignore it.

Cameron
Okay... I hope your right. Cause I always thought that taking pictures of anything or anyone in public is suppose to be okay. I feel kinda weird now..

[defordphoto]

:( No... Quit being so sexist!! If this was a guy then what would it make me? SF Gay stalker??

Geeze. Take a pill. There was NOTHING I said that hinted to you being sexist.

[Penguin_101_1]

Just remember, it is just the internet.

[defordphoto]

Okay... I hope your right. Cause I always thought that taking pictures of anything or anyone in public is suppose to be okay. I feel kinda weird now..

In all seriousness, you may want to check on your local laws. You live in the most law-controlled corner of the entire planet: California/San Francisco and you could possibly be circumventing some of those privacy laws.

That being said, you totally over-reacted to my post. The smiley face DOES make the difference as it was in jest. You, reacting that defensively shows that maybe you may think you're a bit over the line with these photos being posted on the Internet with no model release or them even knowing you shot them.

This all stems from the "upskirt" photos that havwe been posted on the Net for years.

And before you over-react again, nothing you've posted here is sexual, but you are shooting people without them knowing it. And (more than likely) without a model release. If you are indeed securing a model release, then you have my utmost apologies.

[defordphoto]

Just remember, it is just the internet.

That can be seen by anyone anywhere. Just because it's "just the internet" does not mean you can post ANY photo you want.

[Ballen Photo]

:( No... Quit being so sexist!! If this was a guy then what would it make me? SF Gay stalker??LOL Bandit! Not to worry, Jim was just "Razzing" Ya. You carry on, but remember, you may get a wide variety of comments on the net. One of the dangers of street/people photography. :shock: :lol: :cool:
I see the Girl looked right at you and didn't seem to mind your shooting Her.:D
-Bruce

[Penguin_101_1]

That can be seen by anyone anywhere. Just because it's "just the internet" does not mean you can post ANY photo you want.
You missed the point of my post, I ment that don't get all crazy over a joke. It isn't like it is personal. It wasn't about the picture or even pointed at you.

[lomond]

In all seriousness, you may want to check on your local laws. You live in the most law-controlled corner of the entire planet: California/San Francisco and you could possibly be circumventing some of those privacy laws.

That being said, you totally over-reacted to my post. The smiley face DOES make the difference as it was in jest. You, reacting that defensively shows that maybe you may think you're a bit over the line with these photos being posted on the Internet with no model release or them even knowing you shot them.

This all stems from the "upskirt" photos that havwe been posted on the Net for years.

And before you over-react again, nothing you've posted here is sexual, but you are shooting people without them knowing it. And (more than likely) without a model release. If you are indeed securing a model release, then you have my utmost apologies.

Jim, the law is the law, and that's it.
Unless of course your'e a celebrity or monarchy. I'm quite sure Prince Harry didn't agree to a model release of his recent **** get up nor would most celebs in the US when it doesn't suit.
So how does that work.

[Candid Bandit]

So if its not for commercial I still need a model release? In that case I will not shoot and post anymore photos of human subjects anymore. Its just that in a matter of about 20 minutes, I got two comments about my style of photography. Its not like I hide anything. The subjects know I'm there with a camera. Forget it.. this creeps me out.. Since when do candid pics need model releases. These are not even models of anything. I'll take the posts off. Sorry if you folks don't enjoy seeing beautiful women doing everyday things in the streets. And the reason I HATE upskirt perverts is for this very reason. People will automatically group candid photog with those sick people!!! Sorry about overreacting and the sexist comment RFMSports. But if this was a male subject then I wouldn't be jested about stalking.

[defordphoto]

CB: You need to be careful. In these days of post 911, terrorism, candid porn shooters, etc. there are some laws that have been put in place to protect the public from being photographed and published. And yes, that incudes the Internet. Public figures, for the most part, and excluded from those laws because of what they do.

However, the general public does expect some privacy even when out in the public eye.

One key thing you posted in one you earlier threads was: "I shot this from the hip" meaning you were not shooting as a "photographer" but more as a "stalker".

All I am saying is be careful.

[Candid Bandit]

LOL Bandit! Not to worry, Jim was just "Razzing" Ya. You carry on, but remember, you may get a wide variety of comments on the net. One of the dangers of street/people photography. :shock: :lol: :cool:
I see the Girl looked right at you and didn't seem to mind your shooting Her.:D
-Bruce
Alot of times, they seem flattered. But once they notice me then I usually stop cause it wouldn't really be that candid. I would never make anyone feel uncomfortable about me. I've never been approached by anyone about taking their pics.

[Candid Bandit]

CB: You need to be careful. In these days of post 911, terrorism, candid porn shooters, etc. there are some laws that have been put in place to protect the public from being photographed and published. And yes, that incudes the Internet. Public figures, for the most part, and excluded from those laws because of what they do.

However, the general public does expect some privacy even when out in the public eye.

One key thing you posted in one you earlier threads was: "I shot this from the hip" meaning you were not shooting as a "photographer" but more as a "stalker".

All I am saying is be careful.
Ohh.. okay.. I don't shoot from the hip anymore anyways. Got kinda boring. Thats why I just got me a dslr to shoot from the eye.

[lomond]

Candid,
Don't go of on one because some people have commented on you're shots in a way you dont like.
These shots are not easygoing travel/lanscape/family/sport shots, there you're shots.
Stand up for your shots.
There is nothing wrong with these shots and as far as I know nothing illegal.
If you feel that you cant post anymore of this type of shot, then I'm sorry and feel partly responsible.
My comments were meant in jest.
Please reconsider,

Cameron

[Penguin_101_1]

Those pics are legal as long as they are in public areas. They cannot however be sold for profit without a release.

[defordphoto]

I think you'll find that most people really don't mind. Especially in a city like SF. Lots of steet people, etc. Approach the people and ask. Most will say yes. Offer them a free 4x6 or something for invading their privacy.

[defordphoto]

Those pics are legal as long as they are in public areas.

Not necessarily. Especially when they are being published on the Internet.

They cannot however be sold for profit without a release.

That is absolutely true.

[Candid Bandit]

Candid,
Don't go of on one because some people have commented on you're shots in a way you dont like.
These shots are not easygoing travel/lanscape/family/sport shots, there you're shots.
Stand up for your shots.
There is nothing wrong with these shots and as far as I know nothing illegal.
If you feel that you cant post anymore of this type of shot, then I'm sorry and feel partly responsible.
My comments were meant in jest.
Please reconsider,

CameronAlright.. I just won't post as much pics of one subject. Ahhaa.. It is shot on burst mode so I'll just pic out a couple of the good ones. They are really not easy to shoot. I mean, look.. I didn't even have to crop any of the shots that much. I was at the perfect distance without zoom with the subject right smack where she should be. Nothing was hidden, I wasn't hiding behind any trees or anything. It is candid photography as candid as it can be IMO.

[lomond]

Okay, good.
I think we're all happy now.

Cameron

[Candid Bandit]

Not necessarily. Especially when they are being published on the Internet.



That is absolutely true.
RFMSports.. I'm getting a little nervous over here. I really thought that anyone in public can be shot without a model release. Should I remove these..? I really want to share them but if its gonna get me in troble with the laws then I don't think its worth it.

[lomond]

I think for published read sold or used for financial gain.

Cameron

[Candid Bandit]

I think for published read sold or used for financial gain.

CameronNope.. I don't gain anything for my shot. Its just a hobby and passtime for me. I wouldn't sell anything people can just see if they walk out in the streets. I'm just showing people the window of my world thats all. I don't put my name on any of these photos. That would mess up the window to my world effect. Its everyday things I see and find interesting, beautiful or weird.

[lomond]

Candid, I wouldn't worry about it.
You're taking pictures like millions of us, with and without people in the frame. It's not illegal, end of story.

Keep shooting,
Cameron

[Candid Bandit]

Candid, I wouldn't worry about it.
You're taking pictures like millions of us, with and without people in the frame. It's not illegal, end of story.

Keep shooting,
Cameron
okok... :o

[berto]

speaking of legal or illegal.. the real question is. is the picture any good?
my personnal critique of the picture is it doesn't convey anything other than- it was shot without them knowing. i can't believe they stood that way while he took pictures. no woman would show her GUT(woman to the left) like that, unless she just doesn't care.

[lomond]

speaking of legal or illegal.. the real question is. is the picture any good?
my personnal critique of the picture is it doesn't convey anything other than- it was shot without them knowing. i can't believe they stood that way while he took pictures. no woman would show her GUT(woman to the left) like that, unless she just doesn't care.

I think you'll find the pictures were posted in the "people" forum not the "critique". So give your opinion if you like but the poster wasn't specifically asking for it.
Cameron

[Candid Bandit]

speaking of legal or illegal.. the real question is. is the picture any good?
my personnal critique of the picture is it doesn't convey anything other than- it was shot without them knowing. i can't believe they stood that way while he took pictures. no woman would show her GUT(woman to the left) like that, unless she just doesn't care.
Thats the contrast between the subjects in the photos. Blond, brunette, gut and no gut! Haaa

[defordphoto]

Candid, I wouldn't worry about it.
You're taking pictures like millions of us, with and without people in the frame. It's not illegal, end of story.

Not in the US.

[lomond]

Not in the US.

So how do the Paparazzi get round this.

[Candid Bandit]

Not in the US.Since RFMSports the mod here. I think I better respect his advice on finding out about laws first. If its legal.. Then I will post more. Otherwise.. I think these two female subject posts is all I'm gonna share. I can't believe our free country has come to this.. Its just photos and no one was harmed or privacy invaded. Yet I feel really nervous now for what I thought was a very healthy hobby. *sigh* What would be next..? Everyone has to get a permit to take pictures in public and be sworn to ask for permission and model release forms. Candid photography will be no more. I love candid photos.. But I learned something new today.. Pretty women candid photography is not good but take as many pics of men as you want and no one will care.

[lomond]

Okay Candid,
Best stick to landscapes, wildlife and still life in future.
Oh and maybe motorsport but make sure their helmet is on in case someone ID's them.
Best of luck.
Cameron

[Candid Bandit]

Okay Candid,
Best stick to landscapes, wildlife and still life in future.
Oh and maybe motorsport but make sure their helmet is on in case someone ID's them.
Best of luck.
Cameron
Sorry man.. I'll try to find out about the laws asap. Hopefully it will allow me to take pictures of peeps in public and post them here. Dame... All those landscape and wildlife stuff is sooooooo boring. When I shoot candids.. I enjoy it. I feel happy when I get a good shot. But if sharing them is against any laws then I'm no law breaker.

[lomond]

Check Bert Kragress's book on street photography. He's a lawyer who says as long as the image is not for advertising purposes of for sale etc and is shot in a public place then it's legal.
Think about it, George W could have thousands in court for taking a pic of him.
Why aint the paparazzi collared for shooting madonna, God I'm showing my age here.
Or, would everyone mind leaving Times Square I want to take a picture of my wife.
Please lets get real.

[Bodryn]

Right after I got my A70, I used to take photos of merchandise in stores sometimes when I was shopping around, to help me remember what I'd seen. However I found out the hard way one time when a clerk said "What are you doing? You can't take pictures in here!" Made me feel like a common criminal! So I guess when you're inside a store, it's best to check on store policy. And, yes, in the U.S. I hear that people have been arrested just for taking pictures of something that the authorities regard as a terrorist target.

[lomond]

Okay check this;
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002kze

Cameron

[Candid Bandit]

Okay check this;
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002kze

Cameron
Cool.. Thanks. I gots to go home now. I'll read up on it a little later. Thanks again.

[Ballen Photo]

Okay check this;
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002kze

CameronThanks for posting this Lomond, I was getting seriously depressed about not being able to shoot candid street photos here in "The Home of the Brave, and Land of the FREE. :D
-Bruce

[Esquire]

CB - Keep on shooting just like you are. From the hip, from the eye, whereever . . . From your shots, they all appear to have been taken on a public street or right of way, as opposed to a private mall or promenade. If taken on a public street then I would say you are all clear to take photos of anyone and anything you like. I would even go so far as to say you don't need permission from your subjects and you certainly don't need any release. When persons go out in public there is a reduced expectation of privacy - you are, after all, in public. A public street or sidewalk is a bastion of first amendment protection. Photography is a form of communication, or speech, that is protected by the first amendment. This is not stalking and do not feel bad about what you are doing. Obviously, candids are your thing. Keep on keeping on. Some photography calls for capturing your subjects by force, some with persuasion and permission. If you really want to talk about cameras that stalk, the next time you are on any major thouroughfare in America just look up. I bet you will see some municipal eye-in-the-sky lens that is recording your every move.

[Les]

CB, Esquire is right.
There is a book I can recommend- Legal Handbook For Photographers, published by Amherst Media. ( www. AmherstMedia.com ). I bought my copy in Barnes&Noble in Oakland. San Francisco store may have it too. It's $ 20.00 (not much for peace of mind).

[berto]

I think you'll find the pictures were posted in the "people" forum not the "critique". So give your opinion if you like but the poster wasn't specifically asking for it.
Cameron


oh come on. we all critique pictures posted even when its noton the critique page.
saying you like a picture is a critique isn't it?

i like what i like and you like what you like. i loved the pictures candid took of the girls with the boots(a couple of posts down).

[berto]

how bout permission? does anyone ask permission anymore? when i shoot on the street i like to ask the person(s) i'm gonna be shooting or i ask them after i take the shot if i can use the pictures and i'd give them a copy.

--
i'd like to follow you guys along one day with your family and just keep shooting. as long as i'm at a distance, it shouldn't be a bother right? i mean i can park in front of your house and wait for you to come out or your kids then start shooting.

[Eric DeCastro]

look very noisey, and not very good composition. I would try a faster lense.

[defordphoto]

So how do the Paparazzi get round this.

That's a whole different ball of wax. They are people that are (basically) in the public domain. Movie stars, political figures, etc. pretty much give up their private lives and can be shot legally almost any time.

[defordphoto]

Okay check this;
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002kze

Cameron

That person is not quoting law. You folks need to protect yourselves by going by the law and not by what someone says in some forum, including here. You need to consult your local laws in addition to fed and state laws.

There is a book I can recommend- Legal Handbook For Photographers, published by Amherst Media. ( www. AmherstMedia.com ). I bought my copy in Barnes&Noble

That is VERY good advice, Les. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

[NikonF4s]

I have been going through all your posts, and while your work may not always be technically perfect, you certainly do capture the essence of the moment. More importantly you seem to stir up controversy. Thought provoking photography, is probably more important than technically proficient photography. I think you have that element in your work, you should think about photojournalism. Keep it up!

[TJ]

Well at least her feet are warm; don't know about the rest of her.

[jgbeam]

Any girl who walks around with a skirt that is one inch from being illegal wants to be noticed. And photographed. IMO,these shots are voyeuristic but legal. If the blonde were dressed like the girl on the left would you have taken these shots?

Jim

[NikonF4s]

thats an ugly kettle of fish you are about to open...

[defordphoto]

thats an ugly kettle of fish you are about to open...

I have a can of worms I'll give you. It'll make catching them "ugly kettle fish" much easier. ;)

[jgbeam]

thats an ugly kettle of fish you are about to open...

It doesn't have to be ugly. These photos raise some valid questions regarding street photography. And proper street attire, for that matter.

I'd look but I wouldn't shoot ;)

Jim

[Candid Bandit]

CB - Keep on shooting just like you are. From the hip, from the eye, whereever . . . From your shots, they all appear to have been taken on a public street or right of way, as opposed to a private mall or promenade. If taken on a public street then I would say you are all clear to take photos of anyone and anything you like. I would even go so far as to say you don't need permission from your subjects and you certainly don't need any release. When persons go out in public there is a reduced expectation of privacy - you are, after all, in public. A public street or sidewalk is a bastion of first amendment protection. Photography is a form of communication, or speech, that is protected by the first amendment. This is not stalking and do not feel bad about what you are doing. Obviously, candids are your thing. Keep on keeping on. Some photography calls for capturing your subjects by force, some with persuasion and permission. If you really want to talk about cameras that stalk, the next time you are on any major thouroughfare in America just look up. I bet you will see some municipal eye-in-the-sky lens that is recording your every move.
Thanks Esquire! Yeah.. I've never thought of it that way.. I see alot of big brother cams around. What about them red light running cameras. They don't have my permission to take my photo but yet the do. Hehehee..

[Candid Bandit]

how bout permission? does anyone ask permission anymore? when i shoot on the street i like to ask the person(s) i'm gonna be shooting or i ask them after i take the shot if i can use the pictures and i'd give them a copy.

--
i'd like to follow you guys along one day with your family and just keep shooting. as long as i'm at a distance, it shouldn't be a bother right? i mean i can park in front of your house and wait for you to come out or your kids then start shooting.Emm.. I think that you do have a point about the following part. Waiting in front of someones house for pictures of them would definately be out of the question for me. Unless ofcourse you're a private investigator. I've seen the show "Cheaters" on TV before. Its where a couple of dudes follow a subject for miles and wait infront of their house to see who goes in or out. And as long as they stayed in public or the subject is in view of the public they will capture it on video. Even if the subject is at a gym with windows, they will zoom into that window. Can anyone tell me what rights they have to do this?? They even show it on prime time television. PIs are not the law. They don't work for the government. They are just hired photographers if you ask me.

[Candid Bandit]

Any girl who walks around with a skirt that is one inch from being illegal wants to be noticed. And photographed. IMO,these shots are voyeuristic but legal. If the blonde were dressed like the girl on the left would you have taken these shots?

Jim
Jim... You are right, I would not have taken shots of the blond if she was dressed like the brunette. I wouldn't have even given her a second look. But I am however sadden that you would think that these pics are of voyeuristic nature. Voyeur to me is shot at a place where one would expect privacy. Mostly done with hidden cameras and for sexual pleasure. Please Jim, don't think of these pics that way. That is not the intent of my hobby. If it was I wouldn't be posting them here.

I find her outfit very strange thats why I got the shot. Who wears a big thick vest, snow boots, but sports a mini mini skirt during winter time. If she was that cold to wear all those vests and fur lined boots then why wear the mini? And the fact that she was infront of a Victoria Secret store with the beautiful display is irresisable to me. Look, she is even standing on a metal floor door which made her look even more special. Like on a little stage or something. These photo show you what extent the female of our species will go to look pretty, attract attention, attract us.

If it was a man doing something like this, I would have shot him the same way I did her. Ofcoures if he was in a mini skirt it would have made the shot 10x better! HAhah.. But you know what I mean right?

[Candid Bandit]

I have been going through all your posts, and while your work may not always be technically perfect, you certainly do capture the essence of the moment. More importantly you seem to stir up controversy. Thought provoking photography, is probably more important than technically proficient photography. I think you have that element in your work, you should think about photojournalism. Keep it up!Wow... thanks for the nice comment. Photojournalism is something I would like to see myself doing in the future. My dream would be to have a book of everyday people living in their own little world which we all share. But that can be tricky. I can see that now. I really didn't expect these shots to stir up controversy though. My intent is for the photographs to tell their own little story. To tell what the subject is thinking at that very moment. Hummm... maybe I should just do everything in black and white or make them look like paintings!!! Like what Marie did with the Molly Mollone pics and the old man looking in the dark. That way it would be looked at more of an art and nothing else. What do you think?

[jgbeam]

Jim... You are right, I would not have taken shots of the blond if she was dressed like the brunette. I wouldn't have even given her a second look. But I am however sadden that you would think that these pics are of voyeuristic nature.

Don't be saddened by what I think. :( . No big deal. ;)

Jim

[NikonF4s]

My advice to you is, get closer to your subject. Technical skills come with practice, but in terms of perfecting the candid style that you have, I believe that the closer you are the better.

http://www.faheykleingallery.com/featured_artists/nachtwey/nachtwey_frames.htm

Check out this link. Nachtwey has an uncanny ability to get close, but not intrude on his subject. It is a skill that also comes with practice, but is invaluable in candid photography.

[RJSorensen]

Wow . . . leave him alone. If you are in the street and or public sidewalk and they are as well . . . well that is in public. By entering the public right of ways you lose some of your privacy. End of story.

It is his choice and I think giving him a bad time for nothing . . . gets no one anything. Don't look if it bothers you.

[L Digital]

Great shooting CB.
You have art in your work, there isn't anything evil or pervert in what you do. You capture street life in a very unique way. You a re a master in candid photography. Probably the best there is. Your photographs are full of color, sharpness and emotion.

[mgbeach]

These are probably good guidelines, from the American Society of Media Photoraphers.
http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/

[Wasiq]

how do you shoot candidly without being noticed? the camera does make noise...

[Tlee05]

i would so *hit my self doing this, i prob be taking a picture of a female the husband see's me and smack, my photograph down london was bad enough.
i might hide in some trees and do this soon i will show you how they go.

I wanted to make a joke such as.... but they might get affend as i saw earlyer.

but just keep snapping, be funny if you got one of us fellow photographers.

[malla1962]

super shots,I love candid shots.:D:D