Author Topic: Taking photos - when is it rude, when is it not? *long*  (Read 2754 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Venus193

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 15620
  • Backstage passes are wonderful things!
Re: Taking photos - when is it rude, when is it not? *long*
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2013, 07:25:54 AM »
Other potential areas of contention:

  • Taking the next ten years to line up a shot, holding up the people you are with
  • Lining up one or more shots in an active and crowded area -- like 6th Avenue at lunch time -- in a way that substantially interferes with other people trying to get to where they're going

Margo

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Taking photos - when is it rude, when is it not? *long*
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2013, 09:18:49 AM »
Iagree with PPs

- taking a picture of a car on the street: fine
- taking street dhots, or shots of public places generally, which coincidentally include people / children: fine
- Taking pictures in a way which inconveniences others, whether by blocking access, holding  up lots of other people wanting to see / photograph the same thing / demanding people pose or get out of your shot : not OK
- focusing on or taking pictures of (identifiable) individuals without their consent: Not OK

I think taking pictures into someone's private property is a bit more tricky - in the orange tree example, for instance, I think taking shots showing the tree and the house/garden would be a bit intrusive. Taking a shot which showed ONLY an orange or two and some leaves would not strike me that way, although a the photographer I think the onus is on you to think about what it looks as though you're doing, as well as what you're actually doing.

With the dog example I think it's OK to take shots of the dogs, or a general landscape which includes the dogs, but I think taking a shot of the dogs and their owner puts it back in the category of shots of (identifiable) people - if you wouldn't take the picture if the person didn't have the dogs with them, it's not OK to take it when they do.


(edited due to premature posting)
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 09:26:21 AM by Margo »

Thipu1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6319
Re: Taking photos - when is it rude, when is it not? *long*
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2013, 10:05:43 AM »
When we see Classic cars,  they're usually part of a display at a street fair.  In situations like these, photography and conversations are invited. 

Taking general photographs in public places is also perfectly fine.  Children may be included in the shot but the child is not the subject of the photograph.  At places like historic restorations, costumed adults and children are expecting to be photographed.

In the case of unusual animals or bodily adornments, permission should be asked before a photograph is taken.  Of course, if the person with the eight-inch Mohawk is in a parade, no permission is needed.   

MeowMixer

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Taking photos - when is it rude, when is it not? *long*
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2013, 10:24:47 AM »
This thread has got me wondering if I'm in the clear.

Heritage plaques- whenever I come across one I read it and take a picture so I can look up the history corresponding to it (there is so little left in Toronto that hasn't been turned into condos yet).

A couple of years ago I walked down a street I don't normally and came across a plaque in front of a house. This was right at the base of the property so standing on the sidewalk I can read it no problem, no trespassing or anything, and I whip out my phone to take a picture of it. Just as I was taking the photo a neighbour parked in his driveway and walked over to me. We chitchatted for a moment and he told me how the 6 houses that were there were built all at the same time, Mr. Hubbard (the subject of the plaque, successful entrepreneur and Toronto's first black city councillor) owned that house and the neighbouring homes were built for his children and how the current owners of the homes fought developers from tearing them down and what not. All very fascinating stuff, I thanked him for his and his neighbours efforts to preserve such wonderful history.

Given the consensus is don't take pictures of peoples private property does that extend to what is at the sidewalk, the city designations of heritage sites? Did I do something weird in taking that picture? Note I did not take a picture of the house, just the plaque so I wouldn't forget the name before I got home.

Margo

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Taking photos - when is it rude, when is it not? *long*
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2013, 10:29:33 AM »
I wouldn't see that as weird at all.

I think that not taking pictures into private property applies more if you were photographing someone's garden, focusing through their windows,  taking pictures of pets or children playing in the garden, etc.

I think taking a picture of the plaque is normal - it's there to provide information and I think there is an expectation that it will be photographed from time to time.

Thipu1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6319
Re: Taking photos - when is it rude, when is it not? *long*
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2013, 01:38:59 PM »
Photographing a plaque in front of a house should pose no problem.  Photographing a whole house might or might not be seen as an invasion of privacy.

In our neighborhood there are a number of interesting houses.  We have everything from 18th century farm houses to Gilded era mansions.  Casual photography here is very common and no one seems to care. 

  One day, I was on the way home from work and saw a group of tourists photographing a very picturesque house.  I asked the group if they knew anything about the history of the place.  They did not.  The building they were photographing was originally built by Allen Pinkerton of The Pinkerton Detective Agency as a home for his family. They were tickled to get that bit of information to their slide show when they got home.