Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 23 Oct 2015 (Friday) 13:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Total new-bee question?

 
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,482 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 575
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 12, 2015 09:19 |  #31

My take.... There are already 3 billion innocent pictures of kids online, and my taking and posting a few more is harmless.

Supposed risks to these children are crazy hyperbole. Pedophiles are not made by innocent pictures in ads or online, and sexual predators do not track down and abduct kids they see online. They attack kids they already know.

I reject the idea that photographing kids is immoral. Where are the facts to back up this hyperbole? How many kids are abducted by strangers each year? It's a very small number. Can anyone find cases where pedophiles selected and tracked down victims from online photos of random kids?


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,118 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
Post edited over 3 years ago by gonzogolf.
     
Nov 12, 2015 10:17 |  #32

ebiggs wrote in post #17780872 (external link)
It is comforting to know there are great individuals that make the sacrifice and act as internet police to keep us straight.
Keep up the good work.

No internet policing here. Just pointing out the absurdity of some of the assertions made in this and similar threads.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xyclopx
Goldmember
1,714 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 201
Joined Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Nov 12, 2015 11:09 |  #33

ebiggs wrote in post #17780872 (external link)
It is comforting to know there are great individuals that make the sacrifice and act as internet police to keep us straight.
Keep up the good work.

the double irony....


Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
Post edited over 3 years ago by ebiggs.
     
Nov 14, 2015 11:01 |  #34

PineBomb wrote in post #17780896 (external link)
Why is it that whenever someone tries to offer an objective and factual opinion, someone else comes along and berates them with the "police" label? It's offensive to reasonable minds and probably more than a few genuine police professionals.

It is reasonable to label somebody as internet police that tries to justify a morally wrong practice by saying technically it is legal. So it is, it just does not make it right or acceptable. Just as the ridiculous example of a 17 year old becoming a 18 year old shortly. Of course that is different. If you can't see the difference than I can't explain it to you.

I can guarantee you a visit with real policemen if you tried that around here at our school playgrounds. It might be legal but it is still morally wrong. Maybe where you live you don't protect kids that much but we do. And I stand firmly behind the admonishment to not take pictures of other people's kids without them asking you to or by permission.

Now you go out and do as you wish.


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlFooteIII
Senior Member
444 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Jul 2013
Location: New York City
     
Nov 14, 2015 11:36 |  #35

ebiggs wrote in post #17777411 (external link)
What if your innocent picture was used to abduct or threaten or bully or some other ugly thing to a child.

So people need to censor themselves, not based on their reason for taking a picture, but taking into account what every person who sees the photograph might do with it?

ebiggs wrote in post #17777411 (external link)
And why in the world do you want a picture of somebody else's kid? There is name for that individual. Don't make it yours.

Photographer? That's the only name I can think of, given the discussion happening in this thread.

You are trying to inject hyperbole into this discussion by implying that any photographer who takes candid photographs of children in public is a pedophile. I find that outrageous. There are awful people out there who do terrible things to children -- trying to lump good people into that is disgusting.


Specializing in Theatrical Photography. See my work at:
www.alfoote3photograph​y.com/ (external link)
www.facebook.com/alfoo​te3photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PineBomb
I have many notable flaws
Avatar
2,470 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Likes: 1185
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Austin, Texas
     
Nov 14, 2015 11:48 |  #36

ebiggs wrote in post #17783529 (external link)
It is reasonable to label somebody as internet police that tries to justify a morally wrong practice by saying technically it is legal.

I reject the premise of your argument (what you call a morally wrong practice) because you're assuming a state of mind of the photographer that you do not know to be true. I completely understand and agree with the interest of a parent to protect their children, but I believe in a middle ground where our children aren't sheltered from every little irrational fear that can be imagined.


-Matt
Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | instagram (external link) | street portrait project on instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,482 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 575
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 14, 2015 11:50 |  #37

ebiggs wrote in post #17783529 (external link)
I can guarantee you a visit with real policemen if you tried that around here at our school playgrounds. It might be legal but it is still morally wrong.

Two points:
1) You seem to be contradicting youself. This is legal, but I'm going to be visited by a policeman if I do it? Why? What is the cop going to do, frown at me really hard?
2) Can you give a detailed understanding of why taking pictures (innocent pictures, nothing lewd etc) of children is a fundamentally immoral act? I simply cannot follow this logic.

I'm not interested in street photography myself, but I certainly don't think of people who pursue it as somehow immoral.

Maybe where you live you don't protect kids that much but we do.


Protect them from what? How are children materially harmed by having their photo taken? Perhaps this gets back to the question on morality. I do not think kids are at risk of anything, really, from having their picture taken even by strangers. What is the real, actual risk you are envisioning here? And please, if possible please back this up with real world anecdotes and/or crime stats from the FBI database.

Because my understanding is that there are no actual, real crimes occurring that involve innocent photographs of children taken by strangers and I'd love to see your examples to the contrary.

Keep in mind, if the risk exists nowhere beyond your fervered dreams of pedophiles lurking at the park camera in hand, you are not going to win converts here. I have an excellent idea of just how tiny a risk children face from strangers. According to the FBI, an average of about 50 US children are abducted and harmed per year by strangers. By far, the typical abductor is a family member or friend.

And I've never been able to find even one case where a pedophile first encountered a child in a photo and actually tracked down and harmed the child in question.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,118 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
Post edited over 3 years ago by gonzogolf.
     
Nov 14, 2015 19:26 |  #38

ebiggs wrote in post #17783529 (external link)
It is reasonable to label somebody as internet police that tries to justify a morally wrong practice by saying technically it is legal. So it is, it just does not make it right or acceptable. Just as the ridiculous example of a 17 year old becoming a 18 year old shortly. Of course that is different. If you can't see the difference than I can't explain it to you.

I can guarantee you a visit with real policemen if you tried that around here at our school playgrounds. It might be legal but it is still morally wrong. Maybe where you live you don't protect kids that much but we do. And I stand firmly behind the admonishment to not take pictures of other people's kids without them asking you to or by permission.

Now you go out and do as you wish.

How is it morally wrong under every circumstance to take a photo of a child in a public place? In your fervid imagination we are all park peepers but in reality most of us are not creepers. We are talking about legitimate shots of people and children in public places. I think it says more about you and what you are projecting than the actual reality of the situations we describe.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
9,486 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 2149
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 3 years ago by Left Handed Brisket.
     
Nov 14, 2015 19:37 |  #39

Seems like most people in Kansas think teaching evolution is immoral, I suspect taking a picture of a minor is on about that same level of immorality. Depending on your mindset and world view.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,217 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1518
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Nov 14, 2015 20:20 |  #40

JeffreyG wrote in post #17783572 (external link)
Protect them from what? How are children materially harmed by having their photo taken? Perhaps this gets back to the question on morality. I do not think kids are at risk of anything, really, from having their picture taken even by strangers. What is the real, actual risk you are envisioning here? And please, if possible please back this up with real world anecdotes and/or crime stats from the FBI database.

This ^^^
Flowers are nice, kittens are nice and kids playing are nice. Why wouldn't people want to take photos of nice things? What should be of concern to everyone is the people in this thread who associate these photos with sexual perversion. There is clearly something damaged in their minds.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ebiggs
Senior Member
Avatar
638 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Spring Hill, KS
     
Nov 15, 2015 11:39 as a reply to  @ ebiggs's post |  #41

The only way I can account for morals and actually living according to them is that it is just not important to some people. It may be legal but it doesn't make it right.

Yes, this is Kansas. It is not the east or left coast. We do things differently here. Thank heaven.


G1x, EOS 1Dx, EOS 1D Mk IV, ef 8-15mm f4L,
ef 16-35mm f2.8L II, ef 24-70mm f2.8L II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
*** PS 6, ACR 9.3, Lightroom 6.5 ***

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlFooteIII
Senior Member
444 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Jul 2013
Location: New York City
     
Nov 15, 2015 11:47 |  #42

ebiggs wrote in post #17784646 (external link)
The only way I can account for morals and actually living according to them is that it is just not important to some people.

That is an extraordinarily rude statement. You are assuming that your belief on this topic is some universal moral. No. It is your belief and you are welcome to it and to live your life by it. But to make such a sweeping statement that morals are not important to other people because they do not share your belief is incredibly narcissistic.


Specializing in Theatrical Photography. See my work at:
www.alfoote3photograph​y.com/ (external link)
www.facebook.com/alfoo​te3photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,482 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 575
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Post edited over 3 years ago by JeffreyG.
     
Nov 15, 2015 11:52 |  #43

ebiggs wrote in post #17784646 (external link)
The only way I can account for morals and actually living according to them is that it is just not important to some people.

You appear to have decided to become non-responsive so this is pretty much a waste of time.

I'd suggest that none of us are advocating living an immoral life. We just don't agree with you that taking pictures of children is immoral. And since you will not explain your reasons for this belief, I guess the argument is dead. You've converted none of us to your way of thinking because you refuse to even try.

None of us stated that we lack morals.
None of us advocate living against our moral vision
None of us advocate doing something that we understand to be immoral.

So telling us that we don't care about morals completely misses the mark. What you need to do is tell us why you think this is immoral.

It may be legal but it doesn't make it right.

You might be able to convince people if you wanted to try and argue why this is true. You are just stating it as a fact that doesn't require any backup. But as multiple people have commented, there is no basis for seeing this kind of photography as immoral, and with no actual rebuttal from you, I guess this thread is done.

Imagine if I came on here and said "People who build model train sets are immoral." You'd probably think that was crazy, and you might ask me why I thought that way. Now imagine if all my responses were "Hey, if I have to tell you why model trains are wrong....well, that's just how we do things around here." and "I can tell you, build a train set in my state and the cops absolutely will be talking to you."

But I guess morals just aren't important to some people.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,118 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1129
Joined Dec 2006
     
Nov 15, 2015 19:29 |  #44

ebiggs wrote in post #17784646 (external link)
The only way I can account for morals and actually living according to them is that it is just not important to some people. It may be legal but it doesn't make it right.

Yes, this is Kansas. It is not the east or left coast. We do things differently here. Thank heaven.

Please explain to this lifelong midwesterner how taking a photo of a child in a public place is immoral? Please don't paint me as a schoolyard creeper or pervert, but simply taking a innocent photo of a child. Please explain the immorality in detail so we can understand you. This is your chance to make us understand. Is there a bible passage I missed?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Avatar
3,279 posts
Gallery: 469 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 435
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Out of the pack
Post edited over 3 years ago by Reservoir Dog. (3 edits in all)
     
Nov 15, 2015 20:07 |  #45

Luckless wrote in post #17774320 (external link)
Also keep in mind that laws and regulation vary greatly around the globe. For instance France apparently has some fairly hardline laws around a person's image while out in public. Even in the US laws apparently vary state to state, with some not technically needing releases from my understanding, but generally a good idea to collect them when you can if you ever suspect that a photo may be used for promotional purposes.

The whole "It is better to have and not need than to need and not have" kind of thing.

Not apparently, France has it, but it's more about if the photo make you look bad, where the word "image" is in the way/means "how you look" on it.
For example if you look ridiculous on a picture, you got the right to file a case and withdraw the picture from any media, and may be win some money for the damage caused by the picture to your "image" (reputation)


150 Free online photos editing application (external link) / 100 Free Desktop Photo Editor Software (external link) / Free Photography eBooks (external link) / My photography blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,390 views & 12 likes for this thread
Total new-bee question?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is achamb7
696 guests, 287 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.