Beach candids

[freddycr]

:D :D :D :wink: :wink: :wink:

http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/beach_candids1_Large_.jpg


http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/medium/beach_candids3_Large_.jpg

[cactusclay]

Hummm, I think I like them.

[thomascanty]

The bikini bottom on the first girl can't be comfortable! :)

[Candid Bandit]

Kinda gutsy to be doing something like that..(brace yourself dude)

[Mills]

Fun. How about some more?

[mdm]

the surf looks pretty good

[freddycr]

Yes. It's Playa Hermosa...a very shallow wide beach where waves get quite huge.
Some international surf competitions are held in there

[tim]

This looks like an invasion of privacy to me. Did they know you were taking pictures?

[ayotnoms]

The bikini bottom on the first girl can't be comfortable! :)
That's the first thing I thought too...almost as if she put it on backwards LOL

[JaertX]

This looks like an invasion of privacy to me. Did they know you were taking pictures?

Nope...it'd only be an invasion of privacy if the person is in a place where they can reasonably expect to have privacy . . .i.e. not a public place.

[Dante King]

I spend about 2 months out of the year, as we call it in New Jersey, Down the Shore. I have tons of these pics.




http://home.comcast.net/~flyfishnj/IMG_0267-small.jpg


I'M BLIND!!!!!

[tim]

Nope...it'd only be an invasion of privacy if the person is in a place where they can reasonably expect to have privacy . . .i.e. not a public place.

You're talking legally, i'm not talking about the law. How would you like it if someone took pictures of you, your Mum, or your girlfriend/boyfriend and stuck them on the net? I wouldn't like it myself.

[GeneMan88]

Yeah... it's for these same reasons why I'm afraid to take candids of strangers, even though I'm walking down a public street or through a public park. And I also have the same thought... would I like it if someone took a picture of me. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but then again, if it was a pic of me picking my nose or doing something embarassing and then they put it all over the internet... I might have a prob with it.

[Citizensmith]

None of them work for me I'm afraid. Just because its a candid doesn't mean you can get away with poor framing. The third one is even worse. Badly framed and blurry. It's only posted because of the voyeristic view of her chest.

I'm with tim in that these photos are wrong. Its gratuitous stuff like this that give photographers a bad name.

[JaertX]

You're talking legally, i'm not talking about the law. How would you like it if someone took pictures of you, your Mum, or your girlfriend/boyfriend and stuck them on the net? I wouldn't like it myself.


you have a good point

[berto]

as a crititique of the photos posted. i am no expert but these pictures say nothing. what's the point? is it so that you can get away with it?
as for people's privacy. i would say that if you shoot them in a way that if they saw it and they didn't like it. i think it shouldn't be posted at all-- just disrespectful.

[redmule]

Nope...it'd only be an invasion of privacy if the person is in a place where they can reasonably expect to have privacy . . .i.e. not a public place.

Agree 100% here. If one goes to a pubic beach and dresses like this, I feel they have no problems with photos taken of them either, why should you then?

[RichardtheSane]

I'm gonna be blunt. Great subject matter but you could have done a lot better on the photos.

The first one, you could have to down a little lower and included the horizon and a bit of sky, that would have looked a lot better, maybe a little fill flash for those shadows.

Second one could have been so great had you positioned her at the left side of the frame overloking the ocean rather than at the right looking out of the frame.

If you are looking to take good candids this sort of advice will help you - a good candid is made by both the subject and the surroundings - that is why I feel the second shot was nearly a great shot.

If you are looking to take voyeuristic photos of women with very little on then ignore me.

:)

[freddycr]

Well...not for a moment I thought hese innocent pics would ignite such a heated controversy....
I had never done this kind of shooting before, so it was just sort of a "see what happens..."
Not my cup of tea, though

BTW...With an available focal range of only 18-55 mm, I assure you they were well aware I was shooting them !!!

[RichardtheSane]

Sounds like you will make a good beach candid-er then :)

Sorry if I came across a little abrasive. I'm glad they were aware you were shooting them, and I look foward to your next visit. If you get the chance to re-create that second shot.... ;)

[RI Xterra]

Ah these are great photos.I wouldn't worry what others have to say about them...

[charlesu]

I'll be honest and say that I've snapped a pic or two of girls on the beach. Usually they knew and either posed or held a good position (but did not look at the camera). Occasionally, I've taken more of a true candid picture but not T&A. More people playing and interacting and usually unaware that they were being photographed. Frankly, I've had girls come and ask me to take their picture.

One girl practically begged me to shoot her some when I was doing a model shoot on a Florida island. She was beautiful and I was sure had natural talent. And she was 18. But her dad found out that she wanted to pose for me and threw an absolute fit. I offered them my card and asked them to contact me if I could ever be of service. She never posed for me and never contacted me. I expect dad was really concerned. And, frankly, I was working. I didn't have time to pull out a portfolio and show them what I was capable of doing and/or establish a relationship. Though I regret not having the change to photograph that beauty.

[Michaelmjc]

Thada boy Freddy, love those beach candids. would love to see some more ;)

Ah well Charles. There are plenty more fish in the sea.

and who knows she might contact you one day, keep your fingers crossed.

[mdm]

We'll just have to see about this. Go out and get some more as soon as possible.

[Candid Bandit]

You folks was sure easy on him. :(

[craniac]

Image removed in consideration of those lacking the ability to laugh at themselves, or believe that others can.

[jimsolt]

Something like this, for instance?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/craniac/People/oh_booger.jpg

No question, these are candids. Would it be appropriate to post some from a cell phone stuck under the stall divider in a rest room? Or is there some limit to what is called candid?

Just curious . . .

Jim

[craniac]

No question, these are candids. Would it be appropriate to post some from a cell phone stuck under the stall divider in a rest room? Or is there some limit to what is called candid?

It hinges around the concept of expectation of privacy. If you are somewhere like a toilet stall, changing room or other private place then you expect to have privacy so photography would not be appropriate, but when you are out in public, walking down the street, on the beach, etc. then there is less expectation of privacy so photography would be more acceptable. There is of course the issue of different sensibilities so one person might not object to being photographed in a given situation while someone else may take offence.

[Candid Bandit]

HAH!!! Check this out!!!

http://www.nbc-2.com/Investigates/articles/readinvestigativearticle.asp?articleid=2935&z=5&p=

[jimsolt]

It hinges around the concept of expectation of privacy. If you are somewhere like a toilet stall, changing room or other private place then you expect to have privacy so photography would not be appropriate, but when you are out in public, walking down the street, on the beach, etc. then there is less expectation of privacy so photography would be more acceptable. There is of course the issue of different sensibilities so one person might not object to being photographed in a given situation while someone else may take offence.

I think I could truthfully say I don't expect to be photographed anywhere I go when I'm not participating in an event that might be photographed. The distinction for me would be when I go to the beach to relax, I would not expect to be photographed. When I go to the beach to play volleyball, I might expect someone to photgraph the event. If I were standing and watching a huge wave or a shark fin or a beached whale, or a fantastic sunset, I might expect to be photographed doing so. If I'm just standing on the beach, I would probably not expect to be photographed. I am not suggesting I could or would want to sue someone for photographing me in this instance, and I would be among the first to tell someone, "This is a great photograph. I can't help it if you are standing in the middle of it. This is a public place." I am questioning whether I would say that about these photographs.

I KNOW I would object if I were photographed picking my nose even when I should have had the social grace not to have done it in public.

I feel somewhat uncomfortable subscribing to a photography forum when the subject of the forum turns from photography to catching people unaware they are being photographed. There have been some remarkable photographs taken that way, but I think what made them remarkable was not human foible, but recognition of a "moment" and/or some creative photography.

I am acutely aware that in the subsequent discussion of some of these photographs, no one asks about or comments on the lighting, lens, exposure, framing, or general composition of the photo. The comments seem to dwell on the subject, not the photo.

Just some thoughts.
Jim

[Hellashot]

The bikini bottom on the first girl can't be comfortable! :)

That's because her bottom is too big for the bottom. :)

[O/confusion]

HAH!!! Check this out!!!

http://www.nbc-2.com/Investigates/articles/readinvestigativearticle.asp?articleid=2935&z=5&p=

I just read that article. Does anyone else find this bit more than a tad disturbing?--

'"It could be something that down the road could potentially become a more serious crime," said Tracey Booth of the Lee County Sheriff's Office Sexual Predator Unit.'

Notice---a more serious crime . "More" ? So in this officer's mind, at least, if an activity even holds out the possibility of leading to an unlawful act, that activity is already as good as considered a crime.

Well, well. Guess we'd all better watch our step 24/7 wherever we are and whatever we're doing, then. Don't do anything as threatening to the public good as honking your horn in frustration when someone cuts you off in busy traffic--it's a tell-tale sign that you're probably only a step or two away from committing a more serious crime such as assault and battery, or murder.

Presumption of innocence.....hmmm...Anyone seen "Minority Report"?
[I must be paranoid; better arrest me now before I climb up a bell tower with a sniper's rifle! :D]

Personally, and especially as the parent of a particularly vulnerable daughter, I find child pornography abhorrent, and sexual violence of any kind, perpetrated against anyone of any age or gender, fills me with disgust and loathing. But I'm also revolted whenever I see or hear of someone being branded as an incipient pervert or criminal without any evidence or proof of intent. And if taking photographs of adults in swimwear out in plain view on the beach is to be considered lewd behaviour bordering on criminal perversion, why is it then societally O.K. in North America for some adults to parade their prepubescent daughters around in front of TV cameras and the press, dressed and made-up like hookers, for the sake of a "beauty pageant"? The hypocrisy is staggering; and all the more so for those who, like me, were not raised in this culture.

However...in the context of this forum, and with regard to the images posted in this thread for our consideration, I'm of the opinion that there is nothing here to suggest prurience or indicate a "stalker" mentality at work; whether or not the images display any visual appeal, technical skill or creativity is another matter altogether, and one which is subject to fair debate.

regards,

Terry

[PhotosGuy]

I have to agree with Terry's post above.
"could potentially become a more serious..."
"could easily be..."
"can be a precursor to ..."

A car "could easily be" used as a 2-ton weapon to kill dozens of people.

Quote: "If they don't want to be photographed, then they shouldn't be out here. That's the way I look at it," said Sherman Cottrell of Awesome Designs Photography.

Reminds me of the "P.C.Police" who complain about what's on TV, but can't be bothered to change the channel or take personal responsibility for what their kids are watching. Spare me!

[Benuch]

RichardtheSane, I like your advice. However, I think that the second picture has an unsettling element about it that makes it unique, and that is the fact that because of the position of the subject towards the right of the picture, it caused my mind (which has been trained to complete a "story") to try to fill the void of "the story" and thus creating an stimulation moment. I have to imagine (create on my own) as to what she's looking at.

Just my amateur opinion.

[O/confusion]

None of them work for me I'm afraid. Just because its a candid doesn't mean you can get away with poor framing. The third one is even worse. Badly framed and blurry. It's only posted because of the voyeristic view of her chest.

I'm with tim in that these photos are wrong. Its gratuitous stuff like this that give photographers a bad name.

Citizensmith: I entirely agree with your first paragraph, but I do think there's a qualitative difference between the initial two shots and the "nose-picking" example; I think the latter is, indeed, gratuitous and invasive, and I personally would not consider it appropriate for public display, period. As a photograph, and especially in the context of this forum, I feel it has little to recommend it. That's just my opinion, though. However, I don't see anything particularly salacious or tittilating in evidence in either the apparel or the postures depicted in the first two.

I would have real problems with shots being published here that showed people unwittingly caught in the process of changing into/out of their swimwear, or caught at an embarrassing moment when their swimwear has accidentally slipped or "malfunctioned" to reveal parts of their bodies they had no intention of baring in public.

But in the absence of blatant prurience, and provided the intent is not to display the subject for defamatory purposes or for public ridicule (as I feel the third image does), I see no problem with photographing people on a public beach, whether they are aware of it or not. I don't do this kind of photography myself, but I would hope that most of us who are serious about our art/craft are capable of exercising some judgement and a degree of sensitivity towards others whenever we point our lenses at them. Most should know instinctively if they are about to cross the line or not, and should have enough integrity to check any impulse to proceed.

With all respect to the fellow member who raised the matter, whether or not I would like to see such pictures of myself or my family displayed on the internet is really neither here nor there; there may be lots of things going on in the world outside my front door that I don't much care for, but unless those things are also illegal there's not a lot I can do about it except to ask those responsible to kindly desist. Personally, if people notice me taking their photograph and they indicate that they don't want me to, I'm probably not going to persist with it because to do so would just be offensive.

The only other point I'd like to make here is that if people choose to dress and/or comport themselves in a public place in such a way as to cause photographs of them to be considered lewd or indecent, then those people should themselves clearly be charged with public indecency.

Cheers,
Terry

[craniac]

Citizensmith: I entirely agree with your first paragraph, but I do think there's a qualitative difference between the initial two shots and the "nose-picking" example; I think the latter is, indeed, gratuitous and invasive, and I personally would not consider it appropriate for public display, period. As a photograph, and especially in the context of this forum, I feel it has little to recommend it. That's just my opinion, though. However, I don't see anything particularly salacious or tittilating in evidence in either the apparel or the postures depicted in the first two.

I wanted to point out that I'm not entirely sure that Citizensmith is referring to my "nose picking" photo when he speaks of a third photo. His post was made (as the site displays) 2 weeks ago while mine was made 1 week ago. It is possible that his post has been edited, and does refer to my photo, or that a post before his that exhibited a photo has been edited to remove it. I am not familiar enough with the software that runs the forum to know whether an indication is given when a post is edited.

I'm sorry that some of you feel my photograph is in poor taste. I find the photograph amusing, but this stems not from the fact that she is picking her nose, but from the fact that it is only at first glance that she appears to be. If you look more carefully it is clear that she is actually scratching her face alongside her nose. I have a somewhat "different" sense of humour and had I been the subject of the photo would have found it just as amusing.

[smittymike19]

I wanted to point out that I'm not entirely sure that Citizensmith is referring to my "nose picking" photo when he speaks of a third photo. His post was made (as the site displays) 2 weeks ago while mine was made 1 week ago. It is possible that his post has been edited, and does refer to my photo, or that a post before his that exhibited a photo has been edited to remove it. I am not familiar enough with the software that runs the forum to know whether an indication is given when a post is edited.

I'm sorry that some of you feel my photograph is in poor taste. I find the photograph amusing, but this stems not from the fact that she is picking her nose, but from the fact that it is only at first glance that she appears to be. If you look more carefully it is clear that she is actually scratching her face alongside her nose. I have a somewhat "different" sense of humour and had I been the subject of the photo would have found it just as amusing.
of course you would find them amusing, you are not the butt of the joke, someone else is. im sure if there was a picture posted of you in a compromising position, you'd be less likely to laugh. guys like you give photographers a bad rap. what if the picture was of your mother picking her nose and she was devastated by it? just because you dont care doesnt mean somebody else doesnt. post pictures of yourself in compromising positions if you want, dont do it to others. its just mean.

[smittymike19]

artistic value: 0
and to the original poster:
i actually think these are kinda creepy. i know a guy in my high school that got caught with a bunch of pictures he took with a hidden camera of the cheerleaders. these are basically the same. they are not artistic, they are snapshots. you would be a perfect candidate for these....http://www.adorama.com/BS111025.html . keep posting though, we need something to argue about.

[O/confusion]

artistic value: 0
and to the original poster:
i actually think these are kinda creepy. i know a guy in my high school that got caught with a bunch of pictures he took with a hidden camera of the cheerleaders. these are basically the same. they are not artistic, they are snapshots. you would be a perfect candidate for these....http://www.adorama.com/BS111025.html . keep posting though, we need something to argue about.

Smittymike--you are, of course, entitled to your opinion of any member's posted work; but please do try to keep personal smears out of the forum. They don't contribute anything to meaningful discussion, and can only lead to a lot of ill-feeling all around.

respectfully,
Terry

[smittymike19]

Smittymike--you are, of course, entitled to your opinion of any member's posted work; but please do try to keep personal smears out of the forum. They don't contribute anything to meaningful discussion, and can only lead to a lot of ill-feeling all around.

respectfully,
Terry

what is personal about my comments?

[O/confusion]

Smittymike19,

Sorry if I've missed something here, but it seemed quite clear to me that your comment about some guy you knew being caught with voyeuristic photos of cheerleaders, followed by the recommendation (to the original poster) of the item in the link you provided--a pair of high-power binoculars with a camera built in--was tantamount to calling him a Peeping Tom. I think it would be somewhat disingenuous to claim that this was not the intention.

"i know a guy in my high school that got caught with a bunch of pictures he took with a hidden camera of the cheerleaders. these are basically the same. they are not artistic, they are snapshots. you would be a perfect candidate for these....http://www.adorama.com/BS111025.html "


If you take the trouble to look at this person's other posts elsewhere on the forum, you'll see that he takes almost exclusively scenics and architectural photographs, and there is no doubt in my mind that he posted these beach photos in all innocence looking for some constructive feedback--especially since, as he has said, the subjects both knew that he was taking their photographs, they did not request that he not photograph them, and he was not exactly hiding out somewhere with a telephoto lens while he took the pictures.

You have made your feelings about candid beach photography in general, and these images in particular, perfectly clear, and I'm sure everyone respects your right to those opinions; I don't see why there is any need for unpleasant digs that imply the poster is some kind of pervert.

The rule here, or so I've been led to understand, is that if we choose to participate we should maintain a civil tone. I don't call this confrontational and mean-spirited innuendo "civil". Don't think I'll stick around in this thread any longer to watch the tone degenerate further.

Sincerely,
Terry

[smittymike19]

um ok. the first thing is, i am repeating what has been said by 50 other people in this thread. the pictures are not good. i have seen his other work and they are MUCH better. these, in my opinion, are creepy. and yes, the binoculars are used for secretive picture taking. which is creepy. sorry if you dont agree with me, but i dont see his artistic attempt here, when i look at his other pictures and realize how much more he is capable of. these pictures are just plain weird. and taking pictures of strangers that are barely dressed has definite sexual overtones. cant see how you can disagree with that. plus i am not a huge fan of taking candids of strangers, there is a definite invasion of privacy, just as alot of the other posters have said. and to further discredit his attempt, another poster actually put up a "candid" of soemone caught in a compromising position (picking his nose). if you dont think invading a persons privacy is weird, then i guess i dont mind you thinking im the wrong one, as i wouldnt want to be right in your view. i too will no longer view thius post as i really would rather look at his other posts. :)

[DocFrankenstein]

Such a waste of PD time. Taxpayer's money are going towards undercover cops to investigate the photographers.

There's an anecdote. A guy had a distilling machine in his garage. They are used to make alcohol, which is illegal without licence. But you can own the device legally, as long as you're not making your own booze.

The police found out and arrested the guy. Why? Because you have the capacity to make alcohol...

Then you'd probably want to arrest me for rape too!
Why, did you rape someone?
No, but I have the capacity.

[DocFrankenstein]

um ok. the first thing is, i am repeating what has been said by 50 other people in this thread. the pictures are not good. i have seen his other work and they are MUCH better. these, in my opinion, are creepy. and yes, the binoculars are used for secretive picture taking. which is creepy. sorry if you dont agree with me, but i dont see his artistic attempt here, when i look at his other pictures and realize how much more he is capable of. these pictures are just plain weird. and taking pictures of strangers that are barely dressed has definite sexual overtones. cant see how you can disagree with that. plus i am not a huge fan of taking candids of strangers, there is a definite invasion of privacy, just as alot of the other posters have said. and to further discredit his attempt, another poster actually put up a "candid" of soemone caught in a compromising position (picking his nose). if you dont think invading a persons privacy is weird, then i guess i dont mind you thinking im the wrong one, as i wouldnt want to be right in your view. i too will no longer view thius post as i really would rather look at his other posts. :)
Yeah. So sad... such a big issue...

Compare it to child prostitution, child labour and what happens in the warzone.

Too bad to see you influenced so much by the media hype. The reporter HAD to make news from something...

Then the average dumbass gets paranoid when he sees a lens. :rolleyes:

There is nothing wrong with the pictures posted. What do you expect from "beach candids"? Even a great deal of young people are not pleasant to look at at the beach... let alone old ones.

As for composition... there are TONS of images posted here that are worse.

[jfrancho]

Smittymike19,

Sorry if I've missed something here, but it seemed quite clear to me that your comment about some guy you knew being caught with voyeuristic photos of cheerleaders, followed by the recommendation (to the original poster) of the item in the link you provided--a pair of high-power binoculars with a camera built in--was tantamount to calling him a Peeping Tom. I think it would be somewhat disingenuous to claim that this was not the intention.

"i know a guy in my high school that got caught with a bunch of pictures he took with a hidden camera of the cheerleaders. these are basically the same. they are not artistic, they are snapshots. you would be a perfect candidate for these....http://www.adorama.com/BS111025.html "


If you take the trouble to look at this person's other posts elsewhere on the forum, you'll see that he takes almost exclusively scenics and architectural photographs, and there is no doubt in my mind that he posted these beach photos in all innocence looking for some constructive feedback--especially since, as he has said, the subjects both knew that he was taking their photographs, they did not request that he not photograph them, and he was not exactly hiding out somewhere with a telephoto lens while he took the pictures.

You have made your feelings about candid beach photography in general, and these images in particular, perfectly clear, and I'm sure everyone respects your right to those opinions; I don't see why there is any need for unpleasant digs that imply the poster is some kind of pervert.

The rule here, or so I've been led to understand, is that if we choose to participate we should maintain a civil tone. I don't call this confrontational and mean-spirited innuendo "civil". Don't think I'll stick around in this thread any longer to watch the tone degenerate further.

Sincerely,
TerryTerry,
If you take the time to take a look at the other posts made by those in this thread, you'll see a theme developing. It looks like we'll all either baited into discussions that aren't related to the original post or else be judged by the morality gestapo. It looks as though we in for a long ride. Oh well, if you notice, my posts stop for at least eight hours every night.

[NYC2BGI]

Nice. I need to get out to the beach more often.

[Titus213]

freddycr -
Must be a full moon. I don't know what all the fuss is about. I don't care for the pictures as they lack the quality of your landscapes of Costa Rica. Color, saturation, etc are low. As to the subject matter - I've noticed lately the forums leaning to a type of photogrphy that I'm not particularly interested in - nudity, provacative poses, etc. I am hoping it runs in cycles and I do appreciate the warnings. I guess that makes me a prude. The strange thing is that I really appreciate photojournalism and candids.

I would love to see more of Costa Rica beaches (populated or not), mountains, jungles, what ever. And I appreciate your talents in that area....

[CyberDyneSystems]

Let's not use this forum to establish judgment of others choice of subject matter. Some people don't like photos of cars,. but not every car thread in the forum is full of opinions on there worthiness for posting.

With this thread as an example,. we can see how posting images of anything but cute little kittens can soon degenerate into a debate...

Scratch that,. in fact posting photos of little kittens IS subject for a huge debate on another forum I stop in on every so often. ;)

The rules of thumb

Read the post titles.

Post appropriate titles for the subject matter.

If the subject matter is not of interest, don't look.

If you look anyways and the subject matter is not of interest, don't comment. Move on.

[chris.bailey]

Perhaps the fact that this post has been viewed 2,500 times says a lot.

I personally quite like the second shot as the framing is quite disturbing and the lack of footprints to where she is standing does add something. There have been some superb pictures elsewhere however that might get viewed 100 times or so. Go figure.