No photographs please

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: meself
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 02:46 PM

"Some take a sneaky shoy and walk away even pretending they havent.

What would you call that ?"

Sneaky - but at least they have the decency to BE sneaky - some just walk right up, bold as brass, and fire away. Then strut off without, of course, contributing anything to your apparently oh so interesting and colourful existence ....

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST,Reality
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 03:51 PM

You have no expectation of privacy when you are in public. If you don't like that, never go out in public.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: meself
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 04:17 PM

Sorry, I will still go out in public. Doesn't mean I have to like or approve of the lack of privacy.

I don't much like the smell of certain 'public conveniences'. Doesn't mean I won't walk by them, or even, if occasion demands, use them. I still have every right to complain about the smell, if I feel like it.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Crowhugger
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:52 PM

Just because there is no realistic expectation of privacy doesn't mean it's fine and dandy. It's very nice to vent a bit. In a different mood I could just as easily be the one saying, "Suck it up, that's just how it is." [shrug] Sometimes I'm philosophical about it and sometimes it irks me to no end.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:11 AM

If you are in a public place at a public event, it is almost inevitable that someone will get out a camera or camcorder. If it is of sufficient interest for a TV camera to go along, it is unlikely that they would go round Xhundred people and ask them all for permission to be shown on TV: so why should someone with their own camera have to ask every single individual by putting what is widely acknowledged to be a fun event for others to enjoy on Youtube (picture and sound quality good by the way!
It is a different kettle of fish entirely if at a concert given by paid (or even umnpaid) performers: then if it was not forbidden to film, I would routinely ask the performer for permission to broadast the footage: would do it as an "unlisted video" first so that the perfomer could view it privately before giving permission for it to be made public, or I would just make them up their own DVD of the event.
And I agree entirely about the gross irritation caused by photographers, both unofficial and official crawling about all over the place, sticking their long lenses right into your field of view, clicking and flashing, as well as now, it seems, shedding either green or red/orange light on their intended subject as they set the focus. I give great credit to the performers at one event I was at in June, for managing to keep going undeterred against this battery of photographic assaults. (How necessary is flash anyway: it adds nothing from a distance, and can be turned off in most cameras). A word with the organisers did result in a marked reduction on the second day of the event.
But if they need a still photo, as someone else has said, why can't this be taken before or after the concert, or during sound checks?
At another event, the official photographer thought she was being so unobtrusive by crawling around below a rather high stage, but she was painfully visible and very distracting (large expanse of bum cleavage included!)to anyone sitting in the first few rows of the auditorium.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 09:20 AM

We saw Lark Rise performed by Tower Theatre at the Bridewell Theatre in London last night. Although I had my camera with me I considered it inappropriate to take any photos during the performance, which as stated on another thread, was excellent. I did record the sound though - no distraction to anybody.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Jane of 'ull
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 06:22 PM

I have been 'you tubed' at least twice (that I know of) in the last couple of years when attending outdoor festivals. It does make me a little self conscious now when going to these events, I feel slightly inhibited in case I'm caught on camera having a bad hair day or suchlike!

I'm not on Facebook etc and I'm not really in the loop with regards to what is seen as a normal degree of intrusion nowadays. When is it acceptable to film or photograph someone? The boundaries have become blurred with the advent of mobile phones that can take films and pictures.

A case in point : I was treated to an impromptu performance from a rather handsome young male singer songwriter outside a cafe bar some time ago, and whilst I was enjoying the experience I was simultaneously wrestling with the thought should I capture him on my mobile or would it seem rude? I decided not to, but the inner dialogue I was having about this spoiled the experience somewhat. I decided not to film him in the end so I have only the memory!

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Brian May
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 06:40 PM

Whilst I accept it's distracting and sometimes downright rude, you cannot really complain overmuch.

You CHOOSE to be there, either as an unpaid guest or a semi/professional.

It's not as if someone has come into your house to photograph you.

With the plethora of smart phones and tiny camcorders being 'pushed' by manufacturers as 'cool', it is inevitable people with use them.

If you don't like it then stay away - it's a fact of modern life.

Personally, I hate the bloody things.

Subject: RE: No photographs please
From: Jack Campin
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 07:13 PM

"Voyeur Right Angle Spy Lens" £39.00
Point your camera one way and shoot the other with this right angle lens attachment.
This lens will allow you to film directly to the right or left of where your camera appears to be pointing.

I once saw a reproduction of an ad from around 1900 for a camera disguised as a small pistol.

It seems the idea was to let you take unobtrusive snaps of the sort of people that didn't mind if you pointed a gun at them.

I don't believe history records that anybody bought one.