Flash Photography Etiquette?

[NOVA Lady]

I am not sure if I am over sensitive and cranky or if there is some sort of social rule regarding flash photagraphy out in public. But I find this happens once in awhile when I am out and about.

People want to take pictures having fun, and I do as well. But some of these folks have flashes that are absolutely blinding. When I am taking a photo I always look around to see if someone else is going to be in the shot or blinded by the flash. But more often then not when folks are taking pictures around me, as in tonight they will set the picture up with me clearly in the way (I am happy to move or not walk into the shot) and the flash just kills me.

Is it rude to "flash" people? Is it unavoidable? Are there some sort of rules or norms around taking pictures.

I have been wondering what you all think

[Alida]

It helps if you know if the subject has any sort of sensitivity.  We are in final negotiations with a guest and her one requirement is no flash photography.  Exposure to the various chemicals, paints and such in her costumes required for her series over the years caused her to develop light sensitivity.  It would not only be rude to 'flash' her, but for her, it would be painful.

[Lisbeth]

I think that an even bigger etiquette question than whether or not to use a flash is whether or not the photographer is impeding people who have to go by, or whether or not bypassers are interfering with the picture.

For example, if this was a pre-arranged shoot with the flash, say by a professional photographer for commercial purposes, I think it would be really rude of bypassers to interfere with that.  They could do damage to the tune of hundreds, maybe thousands, of the appropriate currency to the photographer, the subject, and the party who commissioned the photo shoot.

On the other hand, I'll agree that someone who acts like a paparazzi or a non-professional who insists that the whole world has to come to a stop so they can take the perfect photo is being just as rude to people who have legitimate reasons to need to go by.

So, when it comes to flash, I guess it depends on the situation.  There are places that ban flash photography because of the damage the lighting can do to surroundings, such as museums.  If a bypasser can tell that a professional or otherwise very serious photo shoot is in progress, I think s/he has a duty to interfere with that to the minimal extent possible.  Thus, s/he should wait until the picture has been taken and then go by, or try to go around the other people.  But a photographer should do his/her best to ensure that other people can go by with the least amount of detouring and waiting.

[Clara Bow]

I don't know if this is really etiquette per se, but I totally agree with your annoyance. I was in Outback steakhouse one night with hubby and the table in front of us was having some sort of party and every five seconds there was a flashbulb going off. You know how dim the lighting in Outback is. I told hubby I felt like I was in the middle of midnight in Fallujah.
I think the best thing to do is try to avoid the flashers if you can. I'm not really sure how to politely ask someone to desist, but I'm sure that if you explained the problem they could set up the picture elsewhere.

[Cyndi]

Ughhhhhhhh regarding rude photographers, I remember once at Disneyland I was stuck behind this family with little kids and the mother kept stopping to take pictures of them. This of course held up the line a lot. She wouldn't just take a picture, she had to have all the kids smiling and looking at her, and mostly they were cranky and crying so it sometimes took up to five minutes for her to snap a photo. I bet the kids were cranky because they were tired of the darn camera flashing in their eyes! The worst part is when I tried to cut around her to move on, she gave me a dirty look and stepped in my way so I couldn't pass. I really wanted to just shove her into the water(it was the line for Small World) and toss the camera in after her.

[Venus193]

Jen is absolutely on point in her objection to people who block public areas to take pictures.  It is very irritating to be walking down a NYC avenue into a group like this when they are blocking foot traffic forever lining up the perfect shot of Bratleigh and Momzilla in Times Square.

Flash photography is probably rude in dimly-lit establishments, especially to anyone near your table.

With regard to photography etiquette, I would be more concerned about whether or not the subject wants to be photographed in the first place.

[Lisbeth]

That's something I wonder about too.  In my examples, I assumed that the subjects were willing.  But often in family situations, for instance, they're not really.

[sempronialou]

It is rude in my book if you do it at the wrong time/place or have been told not to do it in the first place.  It's nice to warn people before you do it if you're taking pictures at a restaurant or sometime.  I really hate it when people use flash photography at performances (even when told not to do so) or photographing musicians at weddings while they're playing.  Not only is disruptive and distracting, but I can't see my music after I've been blinded by the flash.  It happened at a wedding Mr. Lou and I were playing for.  It was the wedding photographer first who was doing this and then the mom of one of our dear friends was doing it while we played.  The mom apologize afterward whom we forgive as she may have not been aware, but the wedding photographer should have known better.  I can't tell you how many dance recitals I was in were some idiot parent decided to take a flash picture of their precious which threw us off sometimes during the performance and this was even after it was stated that "no flash photography was allowed".

[MineralDiva]

I think that particularly indoors (at a theatre, church, restaurant), flash photography that interferres with the subject's or those around the subject's enjoyment of whatever they're doing (and creating a potential safety hazard...as in a theatre), just shouldn't be allowed.

If they MUST take flash photos...say in a restaurant...then keep it to a bare minimum, so as not to disturb the other patrons.  There are plenty of other places to take pictures, where others won't be disturbed by the shutter-bug or their subjects.

[NOVA Lady]

Thanks for all the comments. I tend to agree with everything that was said. Espacially the part about blocking public areas. I am in DC and when people are taking pictures of the random government buildings (bureau of engraving, the state department, whatever) and blocking an entire sidewalk when people are rushing around geting lunch or going to/from work. Or those people that pull over illegally to do so. Ugh.

The final straw that made me post this was last night. We were in a bar watching a comedy show and the group at the table next to us must have taken at least 200 flash pictures obviously having a great time out. We were trying to pay attention to the comedy show. Their flash was incredibly bright and every few seconds a bright flash would blind up momentarily.

I have to think its rude to do that (especially since the place was darkly lit, a bar on Saturday night and all). I can see a few pictures of you and your friends out, but this was ridiculas.

[blue_bunny_paz]

I can't tell you how many dance recitals I was in were some idiot parent decided to take a flash picture of their precious which threw us off sometimes during the performance and this was even after it was stated that "no flash photography was allowed".

I agree, that's so rude! I run a webzine so I get photopasses at various gigs. the standard is no flash photography as it's very off-putting. I'd say the same applies for all public performances. And in a public place a flash can be as intrusive as someone speaking in a very loud voice.

Actually, if I can avoid it I don't use flash as it tends to wash out the photos. I know of someone with an SLR camera, huge lens and he'll still point and click using flash. Shudder.