One disturbing trend I've observed as of late is people sometimes expressing disapproval of one taking photographs in a public setting. Especially if the persons objecting are parents of young kids & the would-be photographer is a "lone wolf" male with a fancier camera like one of mine, the assumption seems to be that you're a pedophile looking to build on your stash of child porn, with their child the latest showcase.
While I respect that parents don't want harm to come to their kids, as a male who commonly has such a camera with me & takes photos in public like a normal person mostly, I take extreme offense to that assumption.
In one instance, I was at the city lake taking photographs of the ducks when a hysterical mother yelled out "don't take photographs of my kids you pervert!" I was trying to do no such thing, I was taking photos like this one (the best one, enlarged & hanging on my wall 16x20 inches):
Does that look like kiddie porn to you?
Besides that, this truth: taking photos in public, even (to an extent) of other people's kids, does NOT make one a pedophile. It makes one an observer of public life who merely wishes to document their surroundings in a non-threatening way. One need only look at the history of Henri Cartier-Bresson (link), a candid-street photographer from years past, to realize that public photography is not only not criminal, but properly done, it can even be artistic. Henri Cartier-Bresson was no pervert, he simply was a photographer who documented life around him in photographs that were so highly regarded & respected that museums were built to house them.
Here is one image (not taken by Henri) that was a Pulitzer prize winner (click to enlarge):
This is a picture taken during the Vietnam war showing the horrors of little kids being burned during a napalm attack. You can read the story about it in more details here. The short version: a Vietnam-war photographer took this photo just moments after a faulty napalm attack which spilled onto innocent civilians, for the purposes of depicting the horror of how the conflicts in war sometimes spill over into civilian life in a very terrible way. The photograph won the World Press Photo of the Year award in 1972.
This is what photography is, and no one should be crying fowl over someone trying to document life as if they're a weirdo or a would-be pervert.
Are the events in my life that significant? No, and neither were the events around Henri Cartier-Bresson's life either (the other photographer I mentioned), and yet no one as far as I've read threw a fit over it, and museums of his work are everywhere. Granted, I'm not as "artistic" at documenting that as Henri was, but it's the same idea: life is happening around me, and I wish to document it in photographs for my memories if nothing else.
Sometimes that life involves my own kids, and of course I'm going to want to document it then for sure. In one notable instance, at a garage sale last year, a young girl around age 11 or so took an interest in my son Adrian, who was 1½ at the time, and promptly picked him up and was holding him in her arms. I saw this sweet innocent moment and, naturally, I took a photo of it:
While I respect that parents don't want harm to come to their kids, as a male who commonly has such a camera with me & takes photos in public like a normal person mostly, I take extreme offense to that assumption.
In one instance, I was at the city lake taking photographs of the ducks when a hysterical mother yelled out "don't take photographs of my kids you pervert!" I was trying to do no such thing, I was taking photos like this one (the best one, enlarged & hanging on my wall 16x20 inches):
Click to enlarge (20090321_133423_rj_b_d200)
Does that look like kiddie porn to you?
Besides that, this truth: taking photos in public, even (to an extent) of other people's kids, does NOT make one a pedophile. It makes one an observer of public life who merely wishes to document their surroundings in a non-threatening way. One need only look at the history of Henri Cartier-Bresson (link), a candid-street photographer from years past, to realize that public photography is not only not criminal, but properly done, it can even be artistic. Henri Cartier-Bresson was no pervert, he simply was a photographer who documented life around him in photographs that were so highly regarded & respected that museums were built to house them.
Here is one image (not taken by Henri) that was a Pulitzer prize winner (click to enlarge):
This is a picture taken during the Vietnam war showing the horrors of little kids being burned during a napalm attack. You can read the story about it in more details here. The short version: a Vietnam-war photographer took this photo just moments after a faulty napalm attack which spilled onto innocent civilians, for the purposes of depicting the horror of how the conflicts in war sometimes spill over into civilian life in a very terrible way. The photograph won the World Press Photo of the Year award in 1972.
This is what photography is, and no one should be crying fowl over someone trying to document life as if they're a weirdo or a would-be pervert.
Are the events in my life that significant? No, and neither were the events around Henri Cartier-Bresson's life either (the other photographer I mentioned), and yet no one as far as I've read threw a fit over it, and museums of his work are everywhere. Granted, I'm not as "artistic" at documenting that as Henri was, but it's the same idea: life is happening around me, and I wish to document it in photographs for my memories if nothing else.
Sometimes that life involves my own kids, and of course I'm going to want to document it then for sure. In one notable instance, at a garage sale last year, a young girl around age 11 or so took an interest in my son Adrian, who was 1½ at the time, and promptly picked him up and was holding him in her arms. I saw this sweet innocent moment and, naturally, I took a photo of it:
Click to enlarge (20100821_113951_b_d5000)
Sometime later, the mother of this person approached me and asked me to delete this photo, "I don't know you" and "in this day & age you can't be too careful."
I was not hostile to her, but I didn't do as she asked either. I rightly took offense to her request, although (again) I didn't blow up either. First off, no harm can come from a photo like this. Really--photos aren't going to do anything other than show something, and the something in this case was something sweet & innocent. Second, I was photographing my child, which obviously I have every right to do; her child happened to be in the field of view, and I wasn't going to ask her to move, that would've disturbed this sweet moment. Third, her child PICKED MY CHILD UP and was HOLDING HIM, and without asking us if we objected, but we (rightly) didn't make a stupid fuss about it, and in fact saw it as a sweet moment to enjoy.
And fourth, to presume me to be guilty of nefarious intentions unless I prove that I am NOT is absolutely an insult, I don't care how much people let the news brainwash them into believing that every street corner is just teaming with perverts everywhere just waiting to pounce on your child.
And fourth, to presume me to be guilty of nefarious intentions unless I prove that I am NOT is absolutely an insult, I don't care how much people let the news brainwash them into believing that every street corner is just teaming with perverts everywhere just waiting to pounce on your child.
I wasn't ugly or hostile to her, but I did state my opinion thus, I didn't delete the photograph obviously, and I make no apology for it.
Even now, when we are (say) at the lake & I whip out my camera to take photos of my kids, there are occasions where other people look at me with contempt. I still take pictures of the overall scenery as well anyway. I'm not going to be rude, but regardless why should I let their unfounded fear ruin it for me? I refuse to.
Still, any day now I expect someone to again go "don't be taking any photos of my kids," to which I am apt to reply: don't worry, I only photographs things which LOOK good. (Which is to say, my word you have one ugly child!)
The key thing is this: legally speaking, in public, in general, you have the right to photograph everything in front of you. That includes children, that includes attractive women (so long as you're not attempting "upskirt" types of photos), that includes ANYONE in public. That is not to say one should be, say, chasing an attractive woman all over the place and being a bother, but when one is just simply casually photographing the scenery around them, or even if they do in fact zoom-in on the innocent moment of a child enjoying a flower or something like that, there is nothing wrong with any of this. Moreover, it isn't illegal, nor should it ever be.
Before I close, I'd like to provide a good story to this subject, because there are those as well & they bring joy to my life. I was at the mother-in-law's once photographing my kids & nieces-nephews. A little girl age 4 or so, from the neighbors next door, neighbors who casually know my in-laws, saw what I was doing and apparently wanted to be a part of it too. She came over by herself without her parents etc and asked me to take photos of her. I did so, and got this nice shot:
The parents of this sweet young girl did not have a fit, even though they only know me casually in passing, and even though I didn't ask permission. In return, I printed out an 8x10 of this shot, framed it, made a CD copy as well--and let them have it all free of charge.
THAT is how it ought to be, people.
There have been other similar stories, where kids see what I'm doing and ASK me to take their photo. I always do so, WITHOUT asking the parents if it's okay. If the parents are around I will then show them a copy and if they give me contact information, I send them a copy. It's a way of BLESSING their life and bringing joy to the life of a child who's only naturally enjoying the big persons around them.
As a person who has been into photography off & on for years, but who was held back due to film-processing costs, I was absolutely thrilled to be able to photograph as I please once digital made it possible. Do you think I have any interest in restraining myself unnecessarily after all of these years just because of unnecessary and unfounded fears on the part of others?
Click to enlarge (20101123_145611_nl_b_d60)
The parents of this sweet young girl did not have a fit, even though they only know me casually in passing, and even though I didn't ask permission. In return, I printed out an 8x10 of this shot, framed it, made a CD copy as well--and let them have it all free of charge.
THAT is how it ought to be, people.
There have been other similar stories, where kids see what I'm doing and ASK me to take their photo. I always do so, WITHOUT asking the parents if it's okay. If the parents are around I will then show them a copy and if they give me contact information, I send them a copy. It's a way of BLESSING their life and bringing joy to the life of a child who's only naturally enjoying the big persons around them.
As a person who has been into photography off & on for years, but who was held back due to film-processing costs, I was absolutely thrilled to be able to photograph as I please once digital made it possible. Do you think I have any interest in restraining myself unnecessarily after all of these years just because of unnecessary and unfounded fears on the part of others?
Don't bet on it.
