# Taking pictures of those subjects who don't want their pictures taken



## The_Traveler (Apr 1, 2019)

I have lately been in a Muslim country where many potential subjects definitely don't want their photos taken because of a disputed passage in their scriptures.

Is Picture Taking Forbidden in Islam? | Synonym

What do you think about this?


----------



## ClickAddict (Apr 1, 2019)

"What do I think of this?"   Respect their wishes.  If you are in an area where there is a reasonable possibility that any subject in general public may be offended by having their photo taken, ensure you have everyone's approval.  Just cause a photographer feels it's "just a photo", who gives us the right to impose our values on other cultures?


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 1, 2019)

ClickAddict said:


> "What do I think of this?"   Respect their wishes.  If you are in an area where there is a reasonable possibility that any subject in general public may be offended by having their photo taken, ensure you have everyone's approval.  Just cause a photographer feels it's "just a photo", who gives us the right to impose our values on other cultures?



Did you read the linked info?
Do you get everyone's approval when you take photos in the street?


----------



## tirediron (Apr 1, 2019)

Apples and oranges!   When the photographer knows, or reasonably ought to know that creating an image is going or is likely to cause offense based on regional culture, tradition or religious reasons, the photographer's ethics should keep him from creating the image.  As someone who's travelled all over the world, I can readily appreciate the appeal of foreign costumes and culture but respecting the dignity of others should be paramount.  (and yes, I did read the article in the link)


----------



## JoeW (Apr 1, 2019)

First, Lew--good link about Islam and photography.

Second, I'm wishy-washy on this issue, I don't have a firm position.  Part of it is safety--if I think taking pictures is going to stir up a crowd or get me punched in the face just because that sleeping infant looks cute, I'll pass it up.  But I'm also not very culturally sensitive.  I'm perfectly willing to take a picture of someone in a public setting even if they're not a fan of having their picture taken.

Third, regarding the passage, I think it's an unreasonable interpretation.  As I understand the Koran, you are not to depict the Prophet accurately (so instead they use symbols like architecture).  But some elements of the Korean have been interpreted by some scholars in such extreme ways.  For instance--music not being allowed (very common in  Afghanistan under the Taliban).  Music has always been  around and a part of muslim culture since the days of the Prophet.

In instances where I think I may be facing a cultural norm, I'll motion with my camera and look hopeful (when shooting people on the street) and language is a barrier.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 1, 2019)

Just to explore what people think.

What if:

1) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject was all right with it but close onlookers would almost certainly think it was wrong?

2) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject would never know that a photo had been taken?


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 1, 2019)

Lets look at this a bit differently. 

In Islam the making of any image of a living thing was prohibited and then during the Turkish Caliphate of the late 15th and 16th century, the images produced showed all of the people and the things of the day, with the notable exception of any image of Mujammed was forbidden. 

now lets look at this a bit closer to home: 
In the US, try taking pictures on Tribal lands! 

Not because there is some spiritual or cultural aspect against images or photographs, but because of the white man's exploitation of natives as a money making scheme that was generally derogatory and prejudice. 

Islam is a different beast. Most contemporary Muslims do not wholly adhere to the Quran any more than modern Christians to the bible. 

So the debate is really to local rules and regulations more than anything else.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 1, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Lets look at this a bit differently.
> 
> .



Yes, thank you.

But, to bring it closer to how you would act in real life.

What if:

1) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject was all right but close onlookers would almost certainly think it was wrong?

2) if you had the opportunity to take an image where the subject would never know that a photo had been taken?


LL


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Apr 1, 2019)

I find it deeply disappointing that in the 21st Century there are still people who rely on suspect interpretations of a Bronze Age fable to tell them how to dress, when and what to eat, why you should not educate women and if photography is allowed or not.

But when I'm travelling in backward looking countries I try to respect people's choices, even if I can't understand their reasoning.


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 1, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > Lets look at this a bit differently.
> ...


----------



## ClickAddict (Apr 1, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> Just to explore what people think.
> 
> What if:
> 
> ...



1. Depends on setting.  too many "yes in this case", "no in another" scenario.  So I guess my answer is...depends.

2. I think I'll quote C.S Lewis on this one....   "Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching"

And as far as Everyone in the street... well I personally dont do street photography, but my opinion would be...  in a crowded area where the vast majority have an expectation of being photographed (aka north america, non religious establishments), I would say be considerate of the situation, but you would certainly not need everyone's consent.  (Either ethically or legally)

I shot at a powwow once.  I made sure I questioned the appropriate people before taking a shot if it was allowed.  (There were certain ceremonies they didn't want to.  Now legally they were on public park area and there was no law that said I could not take their photo.  However, you can be certain I waited for the appropriate time when they were willing.  It's called respect.)


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 1, 2019)

ClickAddict said:


> ....I shot at a powwow once.  I made sure I questioned the appropriate people before taking a shot if it was allowed.  (There were certain ceremonies they didn't want to.  Now legally they were on public park area and there was no law that said I could not take their photo.  However, you can be certain I waited for the appropriate time when they were willing.  It's called respect.)



Tribal customs aside, if in a public square, they may have little recourse unless the publicly display a "No Photo"sign. 

If on the tribal lands, then you have a problem.  But most tribes have a "No Photos" sign at their boundaries.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 1, 2019)

ClickAddict said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Just to explore what people think.
> ...



and what if you didn't know the personal feelings of the subject?


----------



## ClickAddict (Apr 1, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> ClickAddict said:
> 
> 
> > ....I shot at a powwow once.  I made sure I questioned the appropriate people before taking a shot if it was allowed.  (There were certain ceremonies they didn't want to.  Now legally they were on public park area and there was no law that said I could not take their photo.  However, you can be certain I waited for the appropriate time when they were willing.  It's called respect.)
> ...




Like I said, in a public park legally I could, ethically I would not.  Just because something is legally allowed does make it the right thing to do.


----------



## JoeW (Apr 1, 2019)

#2 is easier for me to answer--I'd probably take the photo if the person/party wasn't aware I was taking it.  The biggest exception to my answer would be if I was betraying a trust we'd established (not a blind naive trust they had in me but a conversation about norms and then I betrayed it).

For #1, it would probably come down to what would they do if I took photos?  Would I then be running for my life?  Case in point:  when I was in Hanoi during the Trump-Kim summit, I took some pictures of some Vietnamese AFVs.  I'm pretty sure that's against the law there.  But the line of vehicles was interesting so I went for it.  But I'm also pretty sure they didn't see me taking pictures.


----------



## limr (Apr 1, 2019)

JoeW said:


> For #1, it would probably come down to what would they do if I took photos?  Would I then be running for my life?  Case in point:  when I was in Hanoi during the Trump-Kim summit, I took some pictures of some Vietnamese AFVs.  I'm pretty sure that's against the law there.  But the line of vehicles was interesting so I went for it.  But I'm also pretty sure they didn't see me taking pictures.



It's not just your own safety but that of the person who allowed the picture to be taken. If everyone else disapproves but the subject allows it anyway, there could be consequences for him or her.


----------



## Fujidave (Apr 2, 2019)

I love taking shots of people while out and about, but my main rule is I NEVER take a photo of kids at all.
If someone does not want me to take their photo I will just move on and respect their wishes, but when I`m shooting street photography I will always make sure I get a person in the image.


----------



## waday (Apr 2, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> I find it deeply disappointing that in the 21st Century there are still people who rely on suspect interpretations of a Bronze Age fable to tell them how to dress, when and what to eat, why you should not educate women and if photography is allowed or not.
> 
> But when I'm travelling in backward looking countries I try to respect people's choices, even if I can't understand their reasoning.


Could you elaborate on why you brought this up in this topic, which is conjecture and barely answers the question posed by the OP? It seems this is directed at Muslims, and yet you're describing all religions and most countries to a certain respect.


----------



## Photo Lady (Apr 2, 2019)

so what is the bottom line.. is it okay to take random photos of strangers ... whether they are aware or not aware.. i often thought about this too.. like public state fair and all the different faces you come upon.. is this okay... or not okay.. i know you can do it.. but is it right..?


----------



## Derrel (Apr 2, 2019)

Photo Lady said:


> so what is the bottom line.. is it okay to take random photos of strangers ... whether they are aware or not aware.. i often thought about this too.. like public state fair and all the different faces you come upon.. is this okay... or not okay.. i know you can do it.. but is it right..?



I think that there exists no,one, single, 100% "correct" answer.


----------



## Photo Lady (Apr 2, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Photo Lady said:
> 
> 
> > so what is the bottom line.. is it okay to take random photos of strangers ... whether they are aware or not aware.. i often thought about this too.. like public state fair and all the different faces you come upon.. is this okay... or not okay.. i know you can do it.. but is it right..?
> ...


I think your right.. but i did think of this a few times when out and about.. i wondered if it were okay or not politically correct .. once in awhile i thought it would be fun just to take random photos but thought maybe it would be better to take them if they weren't looking..lol they certainly take chances in some of those walmart photos floating around.


----------



## SCraig (Apr 2, 2019)

Photo Lady said:


> so what is the bottom line.. is it okay to take random photos of strangers ... whether they are aware or not aware.. i often thought about this too.. like public state fair and all the different faces you come upon.. is this okay... or not okay.. i know you can do it.. but is it right..?


It depends on the COUNTRY.  In the USA people in a public place cannot expect any level of privacy and therefore cannot complain when their photograph is taken.  We cannot just arrogantly assume that what is acceptable here is likewise acceptable in other parts of the world since laws and customs are vastly different.  When we visit other parts of the world we are visitors and are expected to behave with some sense of respect for their customs.


----------



## Photo Lady (Apr 2, 2019)

That makes total sense to me.. very well defined


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 2, 2019)

I don't think that putting this question with an eye towards honoring religious or cultural beliefs is good.
Forget religious or cultural beliefs.
Let's say that the subject, whom you know to be a reasonably terrible and ignorant person because you are related, has a tightly held belief that, if his or her picture is taken, he (or she) will die within 5 days.
Let us also say that you want a photo because his spouse, whom you know to be a lovely, intelligent person wants a current picture.

The person doesn't want the picture taken and you do - for a good reason.

It is easy to make that decision specifically and I generally don't respect people as a group for their religious or cultural beliefs, any more than I would respect them because they really loved Star Trek.
I respect individuals and I make my decision specifically on local reasons.


----------



## ClickAddict (Apr 2, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> I don't think that putting this question with an eye towards honoring religious or cultural beliefs is good.
> Forget religious or cultural beliefs.
> Let's say that the subject, whom you know to be a reasonably terrible and ignorant person because you are related, has a tightly held belief that, if his or her picture is taken, he (or she) will die within 5 days.
> Let us also say that you want a photo because his spouse, whom you know to be a lovely, intelligent person wants a current picture.
> ...



I would not take his picture.  His choice.  Not hers.  Whether he is nice or terrible does not change my view on this.  (Now keep in mind there's a difference with someone who TRULY does not want their photo taken (as in your case where he thinks he will die) and someone who is "Ah man, I dont look good in photos" and complaining to his girlfriend while she is trying to get a nice "couples" shot together.  In that case I'd smile and coach him along with some humor cause you know it's more just a game.)


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 2, 2019)

Now with that reason given it's a different matter than what it seemed to me. It had made me think of people who are Amish who don't want their photos taken, at least from what I understand showing their faces in an identifiable way, and I think that needs to be respected. In general in public you can take photos, but if someone doesn't want their picture taken, I think it's best to leave them alone  and find another subject! lol Just because it's in public and you can doesn't mean you should, depends on reading the situation and making a determination as to what's appropriate in a particular set of circumstances.

In this case it might be better to NOT take the person's photo, and give it some time. But I suppose there may not be a lot of time, so maybe try talking to other family members, try to find some resources related to elderly people or any related conditions etc., and try to get some ideas how to approch this. It's unfortunate that the spouse didn't think to get a photo taken some time ago because I don't know if there's any way the person can be convinced to have a photo taken now, and I don't think it would be good to force the issue. 

Sometimes too the more someone feels they're being pushed into something, the less they're willing to do it. Maybe explain (again possibly for the umpteenth time) why the spouse wants a photo and offer some choices - would the person be willing to do a photo in their easy chair? or in the kitchen if they like to cook? or in the yard if it's a nice day and flowers are blooming? or with something related to a hobby? or at a table they can partly 'hide' behind if uncomfortable with how they look in photos? or with others in the photo? or... something the person would accept.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 2, 2019)

Photo Lady mentioned taking photos at fairs, festivals, etc. Try looking up the event and there should be info. somewhere (website, media guide, back of tickets not so much anymore!) about taking photos, etc. I would think though if someone asked you not to take their picture, especially of kids, it would be better to wait til they move on, then take the picture of the booth, display, etc. Or find something else to photograph and come back in a few minutes.

I've done sports/events and usually there's a disclaimer available somewhere that there may be TV cameras there, photos are allowed, etc. so people know they could be seen at the event on the local news or in the local newspaper, or their pictures may be taken or used by the team/venue that could show them at the game/event. 

Photographing events usually involves timing. I found that heads would swivel, and kids (and people who had been to the beer booth) would wave and want their pictures taken, then they'd realize I wasn't all that interesting and go back to watching the game. Then I could get some pictures. So it takes some watching and waiting. 

In general it depends too on usage. You may be able to take photos for personal use, which could include usage as a print (for the buyer's personal use). Anything for commercial (business, advertising) use or for retail use (mugs, T shirts), releases would be needed/permission given.

Try http://asmp.org or PPA for info. on usage, releases, etc.


----------



## Photo Lady (Apr 2, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> Photo Lady mentioned taking photos at fairs, festivals, etc. Try looking up the event and there should be info. somewhere (website, media guide, back of tickets not so much anymore!) about taking photos, etc. I would think though if someone asked you not to take their picture, especially of kids, it would be better to wait til they move on, then take the picture of the booth, display, etc. Or find something else to photograph and come back in a few minutes.
> 
> I've done sports/events and usually there's a disclaimer available somewhere that there may be TV cameras there, photos are allowed, etc. so people know they could be seen at the event on the local news or in the local newspaper, or their pictures may be taken or used by the team/venue that could show them at the game/event.
> 
> ...


very good points. thanks


----------



## JonFZ300 (Apr 2, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> I have lately been in a Muslim country where many potential subjects definitely don't want their photos taken because of a disputed passage in their scriptures.
> 
> Is Picture Taking Forbidden in Islam? | Synonym
> 
> What do you think about this?



I think the idea that people who take pictures are going to be punished by God on judgement day is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is that there is an exception for "necessary" images like passport photos. So I'm going to be punished by God on judgement day for taking pictures or having my picture taken, but God will spare me from eternal suffering for passport photos? The people who wrote the holy scriptures of Islam and Christianity didn't know where the sun went at night. The "rules" in the article are modern interpretations of those scriptures. I think basing any modern-day decision on any ancient scripture or interpretation of scripture is a bad idea and is simply a way for people to control other people. Yes, I am an atheist. 



The_Traveler said:


> Just to explore what people think.
> 
> What if:
> 
> ...



1. I wouldn't take any image that would create tension in any way. If the person who is OK with it wants to be photographed, I'd just take it away from the upset onlookers. No "street" picture is worth ruffling feathers, unless it's journalism or something like that. 

2. If I knew they were OK with it, I would. If there was any doubt at all, I wouldn't.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 2, 2019)

It is interesting that there seems to be no response from people who consider themselves 'street photographers'.
Having a proscriptive opinion about something that doesn't affect the person with the opinion is a bit like a man having a strong opinion on tampons.


----------



## zulu42 (Apr 2, 2019)

Discreetly take a phone snap of him, then show it to him in 6 days... assuming he is still alive. Matter settled.


----------



## zulu42 (Apr 2, 2019)

Seriously, though, if the scenario you've described is indeed accurate, I wonder if that belief may be indicative of a mental illness. It becomes a different conversation.


----------



## JonFZ300 (Apr 2, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> It is interesting that there seems to be no response from people who consider themselves 'street photographers'.
> Having a proscriptive opinion about something that doesn't affect the person with the opinion is a bit like a man having a strong opinion on tampons.



If you only wanted the opinions of street photographers, you should have said that in the OP.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 2, 2019)

not only but at least some.


----------



## JonFZ300 (Apr 2, 2019)

I hear you. Sorry about my tone, didn't mean it as gruff as it "sounded."


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 3, 2019)

How would one go about getting permission without destroying these pictures?

My position is that I make every decision based on local issues; I don't think or care much about some abstract of respect for general religious or cultural issues.
If I can make a good shot without unduly stirring up the situation at that moment I do.


----------



## ClickAddict (Apr 3, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> It is interesting that there seems to be no response from people who consider themselves 'street photographers'.
> Having a proscriptive opinion about something that doesn't affect the person with the opinion is a bit like a man having a strong opinion on tampons.


Perhaps, but if you consider that my #1 reason for not doing street photography is due to my concern over people's privacy and my unwillingness to shoot unless I an certain of consent, my opinion is not from someone without stake in the game.
The comparison to Men's opinions on Tampons is, in my opinion, a poor one.  One can have opinions on subjects without experiencing them.     Especially when the question is "what would you do if", or "what are your thoughts on" ... such as the ones posed in this thread.  You asked opinions about taking photographs of someone who thinks it would kill him.  How many photographers were you expecting to have actually lived through that experience? 
(Great thread by the way)


----------



## waday (Apr 3, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> How would one go about getting permission without destroying these pictures?


Lew, your question started off with one thing, but I feel like it’s evolved quite a bit with the discussion. If you’re talking about a country where photographing in public is legal (and you’re in public), then of course, I’m all for it. Use your rights or lose them.

But if talking about a country that either has laws against photography or extremely conservative views where there could be ramifications to the subject or myself, I would personally hesitate to take photos.


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 3, 2019)

I still have the feeling that if its a general shot intended not on a singular person, then it may be fine to a point. 
But street photography without consent of a singular subject to me is a no no. Thats just me. 

As for the tampon thing: 
its pads in my house and i use a leatherman to carry them around. 
(Violation of the guy code...)


----------



## tirediron (Apr 3, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> ...If I can make a good shot without unduly stirring up the situation at that moment I do.
> 
> View attachment 171084


Otherwise, this?


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 3, 2019)

tirediron said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > ...If I can make a good shot without unduly stirring up the situation at that moment I do.
> ...



I operate exactly as TiredIron emphasizes; I take the photos I can unless the ramifications of what I do are too dire for me or the situation.
I honor personal commitments to individuals but don't respect cultural or religious traditions.
I don't intentionally embarrass people or expose them to ridicule. 
Probably the only general rule I have is that I never take pictures of the homeless or destitute who live on the street.
They are vulnerable and I won't steal their problems to inject some emotion into a photo that would otherwise be devoid.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 3, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



do you check with everyone to see what their socio-economic status is before you photograph them?
Or can you tell just by looking at someone?


----------



## tirediron (Apr 3, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



Lew, I have great respect for you as a photographer; over the years, you have posted some absolutely stellar documentary images, and I KNOW that you can create really great work.  HOWEVER...  your quoted statement above, "...if I can make a good shot..." implies that the image you have posted is a good one.  Really?  An under-exposed, almost detail-less image of people on a commuter train/subway doing nothing of interest is a good image?  I don't "shoot street" myself, but I can definitely appreciate the genre when it's done well, and as I've said, you have done it well, but using this to try and bolster your position?  Come on...  if Billy-Bob Brandnewmember posted that and asked for C&C, it would get the gong in two seconds flat! 

You say you "honor personal commitments to individuals but don't respect cultural or religious traditions" WTF?  You know as well as I that in many parts of the world, particularly in those which you have travelled a lot cultural & religious traditions transcend the individual.  It is a complete contradiction to say that you honour ANY commitment to an individual without respecting their cultural/religious traditions. 

You also say you " never take pictures of the homeless or destitute who live on the street" - I can take it from that you verified that everyone in the image mentioned above has a good job and a home to which to return?

I don't know if you're bored and just hoping to stir up a little action on the forum, but to be honest, it really feels like you were hoping for someone to take a really strong stand one way or the other so that you could tell them how wrong they were...  As you are doubtless aware, I am a HUGE proponent of ethics in our craft and to hear someone, for whom I have great respect for as a craftsman, say that he doesn't respect the cultural or religious traditions of others...  WOW!  I may not understand or agree with other's beliefs, but they are just as viable as my lack of belief.  I am truly disappointed!


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 3, 2019)

waday said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > How would one go about getting permission without destroying these pictures?
> ...




I traveled to Tunis 15 years ago, I found that even though I did not speak their language just holding up the camera and adding a thumbs up/down  made my request clear. Some would shake their heads finger wash a no or nod and otherwise that it was ok. sometimes they would do the thumb and forefinger that most people know as money


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 3, 2019)

I still take it if i want.I don't ask.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 3, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> I traveled to Tunis 15 years ago, I found that even though I did not speak their language just holding up the camera and adding a thumbs up/down  made my request clear. Some would shake their heads finger wash a no or nod and otherwise that it was ok. sometimes they would do the thumb and forefinger that most people know as money


This was pretty much exactly my MO in the rural regions of India and the Middle East when I travelled there.


----------



## sleist (Apr 3, 2019)

Always respect someones requests.  Why photograph someone against their wishes?  Seems a bit selfish to do otherwise if you ask me.
Kinda like taking pics of the homeless.  Another person's suffering is not your photo op.  So always ask and respect the answer.  Seems obvious to be honest.


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 3, 2019)

If your doing portrait work type and would like to photograph someone you may find interesting then yes ask, if they say no then don't. if its street photography you don't ask you capture the moment as you see it, if you ask then that moment is gone simple as that.


----------



## limr (Apr 3, 2019)

DarkShadow said:


> If your doing portrait work type and would like to photography someone you may find interesting then yes ask if they say no then  don't. if its street photography you don't ask you capture the moment as you see it, if you ask then that moment is gone simple as that.



No, it's not "as simple as that."


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 3, 2019)

it is to me and never had any problems and you can always offer a free photo to them email even a print if you wanted.. If have to ask then its staged at that point.


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 3, 2019)

I wont  take any shots of homeless people tho thats something i don't agree with unless you offering money or a meal for  just a portrait  of them and nothing about theme screams homeless. To me pointing a camera down on a man or women pan handling on the corner or holding helps signs just seems low and cheap to me.


----------



## limr (Apr 3, 2019)

DarkShadow said:


> it is to me and never had any problems and you can always offer a free photo to them email even a print if you wanted.. If have to ask then its staged at that point.



And you would continue to ignore what the subject's possible wishes might be even when traveling in countries where it's known that people don't want their photo taken because of their beliefs? Which is what the original question was.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Apr 3, 2019)

The only time something like this has happened to me was in Key West. There's this " Smallest Bar " there that is plastered all over the internet and I recognized it from Flickr. I raised my camera from across the street and see the bartender turn her back to me, flip me the bird and her single patron also give me the salute. She yells " I am human! You could_ ask_ if you might take my picture ". I returned their gesture and yelled back " I am photographing_ this_ ( while pointing at the scene ) and_ not interested_ in_ your_ picture!". I still wonder if she was afraid her parole officer might see her involved in alcoholic adventures.


----------



## limr (Apr 3, 2019)

Dean_Gretsch said:


> I still wonder if she was afraid her parole officer might see her involved in alcoholic adventures.



This is rude.


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 3, 2019)

limr said:


> DarkShadow said:
> 
> 
> > it is to me and never had any problems and you can always offer a free photo to them email even a print if you wanted.. If have to ask then its staged at that point.
> ...


Again i don't ask, I take a shot if its worth it and how does one know what i am  aiming at i could be zooming past a person and shooting the buildings.


----------



## sleist (Apr 3, 2019)

Taking someones photo establishes an intimate relationship between the subject and the photographer.  This needs to be respected.  No different than dating to be honest, as far as I see things.  No means no.  If you don't have the balls to ask permission then you don't have the right to shoot.  Man up or shut up.  I see where 'street' photographers might have objections here.  But there is a fine line between a person's right to privacy and a person's expectation of privacy in a public place.  Having the right to do something (as a photographer) doesn't mean you should do it.


----------



## limr (Apr 3, 2019)

And what about that picture would have been so compelling if you hadn't asked? What story would have been told? What would have elevated that shot to be more than just a couple on a beach? In other words, what picture would have made it worth it to bust in on a private moment?


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 3, 2019)

An officer in full uniform thats put his life  on the line for our safety and freedoms on the beach is  not something you see often and its a  beautiful couple in love and it was a public event. They had people taking pictures with cell phones i offered a free picture to the best of my ability as a Amateur photographer.


----------



## limr (Apr 3, 2019)

And you really think the only reason you couldn't get a good photo was because you had to ask them?


----------



## Fujidave (Apr 4, 2019)

This man asked me to take his image.




Thumbs Up by Dave, on Flickr


This couple did not ask as I just took it.




The Kiss by Dave, on Flickr


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 4, 2019)

Here in the UK ideas on street photography are changing. What once would have gotten one into trouble or a punch on the nose is now encouraged eg the Brighton Gay parade one the other had you produce any kind of a camera and photograph kids even your own in public and people start to get upset. I don’t know if there is a correct way but I try and take a careful approach and if it feels slightly unsafe/threating I get out . Being  disabled I can’t leg it lol more of a falling hobble. A baby crawling can overtake me .......


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 4, 2019)

A new take on street photography. This caused quite a few raised eyebrows.


----------



## Fujidave (Apr 4, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Here in the UK ideas on street photography are changing. What once would have gotten one into trouble or a punch on the nose is now encouraged eg the Brighton Gay parade one the other had you produce any kind of a camera and photograph kids even your own in public and people start to get upset. I don’t know if there is a correct way but I try and take a careful approach and if it feels slightly unsafe/threating I get out . Being  disabled I can’t leg it lol more of a falling hobble. A baby crawling can overtake me .......



I love shooting Brighton Gay Pride.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Apr 4, 2019)

Throws a little fodder to the masses...If fujidave's wonderful photo of the kissing couple won him a monetary prize, how many feel he should be obliged to share with the couple?


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 4, 2019)

Its called couth.  

It seems to be in very short supply these days. 

I also think that the "everything is fair game" argument is demonstrated well in the passage in 1st. Corr. states this (no not being theological here, but it applies...)   ""I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive."... 

I have been on the receiving end of an unwanted photograph that caused me a great deal of harm. Circumstances were specific in my case and though nothing illicit, illegal or even questionable took place, it was a moment in life where that photo (one of the most innocent of anything btw) that caused a lot of consternation for me. 

From that day forward I refuse to project the "everything goes" mentality onto anyone else.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2019)

What about this guy's attitude? His name is Bruce Gilden...quite a character. Leica street shooter. B&W mostly. Famous or infamous.


----------



## waday (Apr 4, 2019)

sleist said:


> If you don't have the balls to ask permission then you don't have the right to shoot.


If you ask permission prior to taking the photo, you’re going to change the subject. If @Fujidave asked permission of the kissing couple, that photo would be different and wouldn’t have the impact that it does.


----------



## Fujidave (Apr 4, 2019)

Derrel said:


> What about this guy's attitude? His name is Bruce Gilden...quite a character. Leica street shooter. B&W mostly. Famous or infamous.



That is so funny the first shot he took, but don`t think I`d do it like that.


----------



## Fujidave (Apr 4, 2019)

waday said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't have the balls to ask permission then you don't have the right to shoot.
> ...




How the story goes on that actual shot I took was, walking down that little road with the XF35mm f2 on the X-T2 and I spotted the couple right away.  As they were all over each other I knew I had to get closer to tell the story so about so many feet from them I just pointed and shot, and must admit I was very happy with it too.


----------



## Fujidave (Apr 4, 2019)

When I came out of a pub to catch the bus home, I did not ask again as I saw a story about Life on a Mobile.  X100F and I was right in front of them just holding the camera up using the screen.




At the Bus Stop by Dave, on Flickr




Waiting for the Bus by Dave, on Flickr


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 4, 2019)

"The famous American cultural critic, H.L. Mencken, once said that, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

My attitude on street pictures is:

I don't want to be part of the photo, I want to influence what I capture as little as possible.
Unless it will cause a significant problem for me, I ignore religious or cultural issues about privacy or photography.
On the other hand, I will respect any individual's expressed wish not to be photographed unless they are committing an antisocial act that should be captured.
I try to respect anyone I shoot, whether I contact them or not. I don't shoot recognizable people, usually street people, who are seem to be suffering, either from economic want or mental issues. I would be using their agony to add impact to a photo that might have no other point except capturing their misfortune.
In that same vein, I won't use someone's misfortune or embarrassment as camera fodder, no matter their social or economic status.  I was at a wedding when a young women tripped and fell flat, her dress sliding up over her bared butt. A photo might be marginally funny but at her expense. Not for me. I have no interest in humiliating, embarrassing or hurting people who are innocent.

As for that picture I posted.  I didn't post it as an example of good/great/whatever street photography but just to show that interacting with subjects often destroys exactly what I want to catch.  (I thought that the sign saying 'last stop' might add but evidently not enough)

For those who have firm stands on never shooting people without permission, perhaps you could point out which shots that you wouldn't have taken.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 4, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> "The famous American cultural critic, H.L. Mencken, once said that, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
> 
> My attitude on street pictures is:
> 
> ...




none of them. because none of them have anything interesting or compelling about them other than touristy snapshots.
I dont have any issues with street photography in general. i just find it odd for someone to put rules based on personal preferences on it and then criticize others for not following said rules.


----------



## limr (Apr 4, 2019)

Derrel said:


> What about this guy's attitude? His name is Bruce Gilden...quite a character. Leica street shooter. B&W mostly. Famous or infamous.



I think Bruce Gilden is an overrated jackass.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 5, 2019)

pixmedic said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > "The famous American cultural critic, H.L. Mencken, once said that, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
> ...



Sorry the “rules” I posted were my own and don’t expect others to follow. If I. Ame accross as you have to do it my way that was not what was intended. As a parent if I see someone pointing a camera in the direction of my kids I will indicate that I don’t want the kids photos taken however if I am sat with my feet in the fountain at postsmouth and someone photos me ,,, well 
I am in public and if I don’t want to get cought cooling me feet then I should not do it lol
Again sorry if peeps thought I was saying “Do it my way”


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 7, 2019)

I missed responding to some direct questions so let me fill these in now while  I hav e a few minutes



pixmedic said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > .. I never take pictures of the homeless or destitute who live on the street.
> ...



In case you missed the operative sentence here in your gleeful haste to say something unpleasant, I made it bold.




tirediron said:


> Lew, I have great respect for you as a photographer; over the years, you have posted some absolutely stellar documentary images, and I KNOW that you can create really great work.  HOWEVER...  your quoted statement above, "...if I can make a good shot..." implies that the image you have posted is a good one.  Really?  An under-exposed, almost detail-less image of people on a commuter train/subway doing nothing of interest is a good image?  I don't "shoot street" myself, but I can definitely appreciate the genre when it's done well, and as I've said, you have done it well, but using this to try and bolster your position?  Come on...  if Billy-Bob Brandnewmember posted that and asked for C&C, it would get the gong in two seconds flat!
> 
> You say you "honor personal commitments to individuals but don't respect cultural or religious traditions" WTF?  You know as well as I that in many parts of the world, particularly in those which you have travelled a lot cultural & religious traditions transcend the individual.  It is a complete contradiction to say that you honour ANY commitment to an individual without respecting their cultural/religious traditions.
> 
> ...



If someone indicates to me either by word, gesture or expression that they don't want their photograph taken, I don't.  
I have made some contact with them as a person and I honor that.
Except for startling exceptions, like the Amish or the Jains, every religion or culture I have come across has done enough unpleasant things to disqualify them as a group from my consideration.
So, not having the capability to read people's minds, failing a human to human interaction, I go with what I think.

Art, and artists, have a long tradition of speaking truth to power and all art is not flowers and birds and doggies.
I think of myself as an artist, not necessarily a good artist, but at least someone who is trying to capture life as it is.
Sanitizing what I make into art because some cultural or religious group doesn't like it is censorship of the worst kind, supposedly in the name of good behavior.

Street photography is hard technically but also difficult in that the shooter is trying to capture, without words, something with meaning, something that resonates with the sensibilities of viewers.
If I page through the catalogue from Garry Winogrand's show at the Smithsonian, all 420 pages, there are a great many that I just plain don't get, but every once in a while there are just wonderful memorable show stoppers.

I don't expect that everyone likes everything I shoot but my failures don't mean anything about street photography as a craft and an art or even about me as an artist.
Some pictures are easy to understand, some pictures are not.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 7, 2019)

limr said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > What about this guy's attitude? His name is Bruce Gilden...quite a character. Leica street shooter. B&W mostly. Famous or infamous.
> ...



One could capitalize his name, and the two adjectives, and make a business card that would read,
"Bruce Gilden, Overrated Jackass"


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

Wow some really stunning photos.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 9, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> I missed responding to some direct questions so let me fill these in now while  I hav e a few minutes
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Fine, except none of your unnecessarily bolded text actually answered my question. You claim to not exploit anyone, yet you have not told me what defining factors you use to look at someone from a distance and tell if they are suffering or not. Do you know that woman on the subway has a home to go to? Do you know if any of the people you photograph are vulnerable or not? 
What level of problems can a person have and still be ok to shoot on the street? 
You seem to be assuming a lot in your street photography. Very convenient given your bolded claim despite not seeming to have any way to validate said claim. 
I suppose however, if i had special "people with problems" vision like you aparantly do i would probably try street photography as well.
Is it something i can learn, or is automatically knowing who is "OK" and who is "vulnerable" an inborn instinct?


----------



## mrtenpercent (Apr 9, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> I have lately been in a Muslim country where many potential subjects definitely don't want their photos taken because of a disputed passage in their scriptures.
> 
> Is Picture Taking Forbidden in Islam? | Synonym
> 
> What do you think about this?



The disputed passage in their scriptures is presumably not disputed by them. So you know the answer if you think about it.

How about changing the question slightly? I know a really good travel photographer, but I don't like with all of their edits so is it ok to edit their images and take credit as long as they don't find out about it?


----------



## K9Kirk (Apr 9, 2019)

I read the article and it confirmed what I already knew, that it's relative. Not everyone interprets the bible/Quran the same way so no one can say that everyone in a particular country is going to feel the same way about being in someone's picture and what do their judicial laws say about it? Here in the U.S. ours say if someone is in a public place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy then you can not take their picture. That being a place like a public bathroom or a clubs locker room. Otherwise, you can legally snap away out in public but just the same, though, if someone asked me not to take their picture here in the U.S. I would honor their request. 

If I go to out in public here or anywhere and start taking pictures where there are a lot of people around I am definitely not going to run around asking everyone if they are "OK" with it, that's ludicrous to expect anyone to do that. Instead, what makes much better sense to me is (and I think the potential picture-ees would agree) if anyone doesn't want to be in my picture they can either speak up 'politely' and I'll not take their picture or simply move out of the way like most people do when they see a person taking a picture of something. Most bibles don't preach to people to act like jerks over their religion either. - Sorry that was so long winded.


----------



## limr (Apr 9, 2019)

K9Kirk said:


> I read the article and it confirmed what I already knew, that it's relative. Not everyone interprets the bible/Quran the same way so no one can say that everyone in a particular country is going to feel the same way about being in someone's picture and what do their judicial laws say about it?



Exactly. Islam is not monolithic. One has to take into account the culture and laws of the people who follow that religion.


----------



## K9Kirk (Apr 9, 2019)

limr said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > What about this guy's attitude? His name is Bruce Gilden...quite a character. Leica street shooter. B&W mostly. Famous or infamous.
> ...


Someone should follow him around all day in public where it's legal to do what he does and constantly shove their camera in his face every chance they got. I would bet that he would develop the opinion real quick that that person is a jackass.


----------



## lucypaddydog (Apr 9, 2019)

Last week I was in a Muslim country, I took over 3000 photographs. I visited a mosque, where I took some beautiful images, small villages and large towns, as well as the Kings Palace, (where I did stray a little from the tourist route and was asked not to photograph certain areas). It was widely accepted that as a tourist, in an open space, where there is a building, or structure of interest and the intent is to photograph that structure, there was no problems from the local folk, even if they were included in the frame. I found occasionally, women turned their backs, or covered their face, but this didn't happen too often. 

In  busy area's it is almost impossible to exclude locals from the frame, and this is accepted. If I wanted to take a photograph of an individual, then I simply asked, explained why I wanted to take the portrait, and showed the image to the subject afterwards.  Some people wanted paying for the photograph, so I paid, some people said no,  so I thanked them and left them after a friendly chat, some like the ladies making argon oil in the markets, said I could photograph only their working hands, which was ok.  

Subjects and models are human beings, if you treat them as such, I have personally found, no matter what colour, creed, religion or culture, people will respond with either a yes take the picture, or no please don't, or add some condition, as happened in Turkey a few years ago, I was allowed to take a portrait of a lovely Muslim lady, as long as I took portraits of her whole family and sent her prints when I got home. This I did.

Maybe my experience helps or not, but this is what I have found


----------



## limr (Apr 9, 2019)

lucypaddydog said:


> Last week I was in a Muslim country, I took over 3000 photographs. I visited a mosque, where I took some beautiful images, small villages and large towns, as well as the Kings Palace, (where I did stray a little from the tourist route and was asked not to photograph certain areas). It was widely accepted that as a tourist, in an open space, where there is a building, or structure of interest and the intent is to photograph that structure, there was no problems from the local folk, even if they were included in the frame. I found occasionally, women turned their backs, or covered their face, but this didn't happen too often.
> 
> In  busy area's it is almost impossible to exclude locals from the frame, and this is accepted. If I wanted to take a photograph of an individual, then I simply asked, explained why I wanted to take the portrait, and showed the image to the subject afterwards.  Some people wanted paying for the photograph, so I paid, some people said no,  so I thanked them and left them after a friendly chat, some like the ladies making argon oil in the markets, said I could photograph only their working hands, which was ok.
> 
> ...



I lived in Turkey for 3 years and this was my approach on the rare occasions that I was interested in taking pictures of specific people. I generally am not so for most of the photos I took while I was there, it wasn't an issue. I was not doing street photography. I actually didn't do a whole lot of photography at all during my time there, actually. Just figuring out how to live there took a lot of my energy and focus.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 9, 2019)

Question 1) This was taken in the desert about 10 miles outside of Ouardzazarte, Morocco

This is a conservative Muslim area.
Would you take this picture?  Why or why not?

Please disregard your opinion of the final product  below here.

Question 2) if you were in Paris, would you take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night?  (The light display is copyrighted.)


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2019)

I WOULD have, most certainly, taken that picture. Just to show the conditions the area's herders encounter, as a way to document the harshness of the climate/geography

RE: Question 2) if you were in Paris, would you take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night? (The light display is copyrighted.)

YES. The Coca~Cola logo is also copyrighted..and I have photographed it before...


----------



## limr (Apr 9, 2019)

What is even the point of this whole thread anyway? Seriously? Is it to reaffirm the opinion you already hold if someone says yes to this picture? Or to wait for people to disagree so you can convince them that yours is the 'correct' opinion?


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 9, 2019)

limr said:


> What is even the point of this whole thread anyway? Seriously? Is it to reaffirm the opinion you already hold if someone says yes to this picture? Or to wait for people to disagree so you can convince them that yours is the 'correct' opinion?



It is a discussion to get people to explore their own opinions on a tricky subject.
The Socratic method.
Why are you implying something more?

I've stated my opinions; could you point out where I have said that anyone else's is incorrect.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2019)

What is this "*Socratic method "*you speak of? Is it from a blog or Instagram page?


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 9, 2019)

Derrel said:


> What is this "*Socratic method "*you speak of? Is it from a blog or Instagram page?



Yes, it is - and more  socratic method - Google Search

Even movies - The Paper Chase (1973) - IMDb


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 9, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I WOULD have, most certainly, taken that picture. Just to show the conditions the area's herders encounter, as a way to document the harshness of the climate/geography



This is the road back.
The High Atlas Mountains are in the background


----------



## limr (Apr 9, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > What is even the point of this whole thread anyway? Seriously? Is it to reaffirm the opinion you already hold if someone says yes to this picture? Or to wait for people to disagree so you can convince them that yours is the 'correct' opinion?
> ...



I could, but I have no interest in playing this game.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 9, 2019)

Your choice.
As I've said before, this is a discussion about photography, in the photography discussion forum and I have done nothing but ask questions to try to define opinion.
The discussion has been pleasant, informative and illustrative of what others think.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

Re the taking photos of copyrighted things.... I ask the question would I like it if somebody copied my photo 
I left one very popular web site because I found people could copy my work.
Ask the question how would I feel if someone copied my work before knowingly photographing something that is copyrighted.


----------



## limr (Apr 9, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Re the taking photos of copyrighted things.... I ask the question would I like it if somebody copied my photo
> I left one very popular web site because I found people could copy my work.
> Ask the question how would I feel if someone copied my work before knowingly photographing something that is copyrighted.



Did you post this in the wrong thread?


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

Lime Hi
Somewhere in the above thread someone was asking a question about photographing something that was copyrighted. My reply was my personal feeling on the matter and I asked the question how whoever posted would feel. If this in the wrong place or is considered wrong please delete
Thanks


----------



## limr (Apr 9, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Lime Hi
> Somewhere in the above thread someone was asking a question about photographing something that was copyrighted. My reply was my personal feeling on the matter and I asked the question how whoever posted would feel. If this in the wrong place or is considered wrong please delete
> Thanks



Apologies - I see now that a post had been edited by the OP to add a second question about copyright. 

I really don't understand how copyright is coming into a thread about street photography in Muslim countries. Seems like the goalposts keep changing.


----------



## JonFZ300 (Apr 9, 2019)

limr said:


> I really don't understand how copyright is coming into a thread about street photography in Muslim countries. Seems like the goalposts keep changing.



I just re-read the thread and came here to post this exact sentiment. The goalposts have been moved 3 or 4 times in this thread. I always try to make a point of answering the questions asked in the OP (I did) and making everything everything relevant to the thread title or initial idea. Only about a page and a half of this thread relates to the thread title and original idea. The rest has been, "OK but what about this scenario?" I'm not bothered by it, but it seems odd and bordering on trying to find an argument where there isn't one. 

I don't do candid street photography and, frankly, it's not for me as an art form. I understand what it's supposed to do and there are some compelling images out there but it seems more like journalism than art to me. And that Jackass shooting his flash in peoples' faces would get a new camera (and maybe some new teeth) if he did that to me. lol


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 9, 2019)

Well, since I did most/all of the question posting, I might have the answer to what links these questions together, but no one asked me.


----------



## waday (Apr 10, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Re the taking photos of copyrighted things.... I ask the question would I like it if somebody copied my photo
> I left one very popular web site because I found people could copy my work.
> Ask the question how would I feel if someone copied my work before knowingly photographing something that is copyrighted.


I get your point. I really do. But, I personally don’t think it's as cut and dry as you state.

If someone is directly stealing your work, that's one thing. But, photographing something that is copyrighted is different--and I think it really depends on the end use of the photo and the subject of the photo.

What if you’re in Times Square NYC, and you want to take a picture. There are likely hundreds of copyrighted images/ads/etc everywhere, to the point where it’d be nearly impossible to take a picture without getting a copyrighted something in the photo. Did you track down all owners of copyrights here?

Or, what if you're taking a portrait of someone with a visible tattoo? Did you get the tattoo artist’s approval prior to taking the photo?

Or, what about eyeglasses? The design and style of my eyeglasses are probably copyrighted, so can I take a selfie wearing glasses? Or am I now infringing on the designer's copyright?

ETA: Also, note that my questions are as vague as Lew's.


----------



## limr (Apr 10, 2019)

waday said:


> Original katomi said:
> 
> 
> > Re the taking photos of copyrighted things.... I ask the question would I like it if somebody copied my photo
> ...



If I may, eyeglasses are more likely to be protected under a design patent or trademark rather than copyright, so a photo may still be problematic, but in a different, more limited way (e.g. exposing a not-yet patented prototype that can now be copied before the inventor/designer can file.)

But overall point taken. </pedantry>


----------



## Fujidave (Apr 10, 2019)

The other thing I love about street photography is, as everyone might know you Don`t have to have a person in the image at all it could be an image that shows a scene where a person might of been in.


----------



## SquarePeg (Apr 10, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I WOULD have, most certainly, taken that picture. Just to show the conditions the area's herders encounter, as a way to document the harshness of the climate/geography
> ...



Nice photo.  I wish the top of the tree hadn't been cut off.  Was this cropped?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 10, 2019)

Oh now Derrel, don't you know it's in Monty Python? (I'll spare this thread from going further in another direction and post it in the Leaderboard!)

It seems like this thread could be three separate ones; it started with a generalization then a specific situation that to me seemed to be the real reason for the thread. But I guess it wasn't, and I don't know how copyright got into it. I don't know international copyright to know about photos taken in another country.

It's not just about taking a photo, it's about usage. If the man in the distance on one of the animals (which look like long eared cows or long legged goats!) didn't ask you to not take the picture, and he didn't yell at you or glare at you or otherwise indicate to leave him alone, then it's probably fine to take the picture since the vast desert seems to be a public enough place. In the US, a photo that is mostly animals and a whole lot of sand would be fine to use since there is one human being on an animal who isn't recognizable.

If you want to take a picture of the Eiffel Tower for personal use or as an art print or for editorial use, that should not need permisson or a release (if the Eiffel Tower was in the US). If you want to slap photos of the Eiffel Tower on T shirts or mugs to sell (retail use), or use them commercially (business, advertising use), that would violate copyright/trademark (if you moved the Eiffel Tower to say, Vegas). Anyone can look up info. on the US Copyright Office website or try pro photographers organization like ASMP or PPA.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 10, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> I have lately been in a Muslim country where many potential subjects definitely don't want their photos taken because of a disputed passage in their scriptures.
> 
> Is Picture Taking Forbidden in Islam? | Synonym
> 
> What do you think about this?



I think we have applied a good dose of the "Socratic method' to the original post, as well as to subsequent additional questions.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 10, 2019)

Shooting in the 'street' or any public area requires a huge number of decisions, not all of which are about the technical or esthetic requirements of the shot.
More than in most any other niche, it requires the photographer to think about the ethics of the proposed shot.
Over a long-ish period I have refined my own attitudes about what I will and won't shoot and I started this thread because I was interested in how people make those decisions. 
And that's why I continued asking questions, in response to what I saw as un-thoughtful answers.

In addition to learning that most people, who actually do take pictures of people seem to have rather ambiguous lines they might cross to take a picture.

And the very fact of the existence of the thread  seemed to bother people.
I contribute here and should have the right to start a thread on an appropriate topic.
I don't insult people (with one specific exception.)
I give money, 
I critique other images posted for comment, and spend time to illustrate what I mean (as opposed to merely saying pictures are just 'snapshots.)
I actually work at photography and post my own images for comment myself, being willing to take criticism.  
That last is something that many people don't do.


----------



## JonFZ300 (Apr 10, 2019)

The_Traveler said:


> And that's why I continued asking questions, in response to what I saw as un-thoughtful answers.



And here we have it... 

Your original question was basically, "Should you take a picture of someone who doesn't want their picture taken for various reasons including religion?" And the answers were a chorus of "respect their wishes" and "it depends on the situation but respect their wishes." Then you asked the same questions but worded differently and the responses were about the same. 

I don't think this is the deep, thought-provoking topic you thought it was. It seems obvious to me that if your photography is upsetting someone or causing a scene, you should stop and re-evaluate your practices. If that's not thoughtful enough, I don't know what to tell you. 

I see no evidence of people being bothered by the existence of this thread. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 10, 2019)

Clearly, perhaps not to you, I was trying to find out how people would respond in different situations.

Why does it bother you enough to write a post to put me 'in my place'.

I would suggest that, if you are annoyed or bothered by what I post, you block me and that will relieve all the tension.


----------

