Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Art or Just Plain Creepy?  (Read 53643 times)
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #80 on: May 21, 2013, 01:18:22 PM »
ReplyReply

That's Bruce Gilden, and as far as I know he's still doing it. Here's a clip of his street photography "technique:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRBARi09je8. I don't understand how Bruce has managed to live this long.

Yes!  Gilden.
Logged
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #81 on: May 21, 2013, 02:23:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Bruce Davidson always asks permissions first when he does street photography.


Davidson doesn't consider what he does as street photography, which is usually defined as candids taken in public places. He's really a documentary/editorial photographer.

Here's what he has to say about why he doesn't do "street", although he does say that he might like to try it someday.

His comment starts at around 40:15.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoiKanHX6Eo
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 02:25:26 PM by Doug Frost » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6052



WWW
« Reply #82 on: May 21, 2013, 04:16:40 PM »
ReplyReply

If he asks permission first it's not street photography. It's posed photography. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a long way from street.
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #83 on: May 21, 2013, 05:04:08 PM »
ReplyReply

If he asks permission first it's not street photography. It's posed photography. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a long way from street.

Agreed.  Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.  When I do it's not 'street'. 

Mark Cohen is a Gilden-wannabe who also uses flash up close.
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #84 on: May 21, 2013, 06:47:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's what he has to say about why he doesn't do "street", although he does say that he might like to try it someday.
His comment starts at around 40:15.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoiKanHX6Eo
Great link, thanks. "I always felt that street photography was - you know - stealing a soul".
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #85 on: May 23, 2013, 10:06:30 AM »
ReplyReply

One lawsuit has been filed and there will likely be more.  The lawsuit that has been filed is by the parents of two children (4 and 2) who are in some of the images Svenson took.  And as one of the 'subjects' points out, what does he have that hasn't been seen by the public?
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6052



WWW
« Reply #86 on: May 23, 2013, 10:59:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Svenson should have checked with his local attorney or with Bert Krages. Bert would have told him what he tells us in "The Photographer's Right": "Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes."

I predict that Svenson will lose in court but that financially the win will be a loser for Kravetz.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #87 on: May 23, 2013, 11:34:20 AM »
ReplyReply

IMO, of the several links, only Bruce Davidson is a photographer. The others are people with huge ego and much to be modest about, to say the least. (Huge colour shots of Ground Zero don't count. Any snapper can do that if he knows how to work the camera and gets access. Even Annie L. has some later ones in her book - in b/white.)

It's so obvious (the quality or lack thereof aspect) in their photographs: you can see it even more clearly if you cover your ears (or just turn off the sound, of course) and let your eyes tell you the truth, and not your ears confuse you with the hype.

The Davidson images have a point, a raison d'Ítre; the others do not.

Again, IMO.

Rob C
Logged

Gulag
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


« Reply #88 on: May 23, 2013, 06:31:16 PM »
ReplyReply

IMO, of the several links, only Bruce Davidson is a photographer. The others are people with huge ego and much to be modest about, to say the least. (Huge colour shots of Ground Zero don't count. Any snapper can do that if he knows how to work the camera and gets access. Even Annie L. has some later ones in her book - in b/white.)

It's so obvious (the quality or lack thereof aspect) in their photographs: you can see it even more clearly if you cover your ears (or just turn off the sound, of course) and let your eyes tell you the truth, and not your ears confuse you with the hype.

The Davidson images have a point, a raison d'Ítre; the others do not.

Again, IMO.

Rob C

so you get put off by Philip-Lorca diCorcia's work?
Logged

ďFor art to be art it has to cure.Ē  - Alejandro Jodorowsky
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #89 on: May 24, 2013, 01:22:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Svenson should have checked with his local attorney or with Bert Krages. Bert would have told him what he tells us in "The Photographer's Right": "Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes."

I predict that Svenson will lose in court but that financially the win will be a loser for Kravetz.


Seclusion is one thing, being in full view of the public in an apartment with floor to ceiling glass walls is something else. Svenson will win. Kravetz should have consulted Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, before filing her lawsuit.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #90 on: May 24, 2013, 03:26:19 AM »
ReplyReply

so you get put off by Philip-Lorca diCorcia's work?


If I'm right in connecting him with the guy who does set-ups on LA streets (and in bedrooms and balconies) of male hookers and stuff like that, you are correct.

Anyway, the generous people of California appear to pay him to do it via grants, so it can't be all bad - for him. The whores get a buck without selling a f**k, and I feel no temptation towards either them or the piccies, so everybody wins. And then the galleristas cash in on top of that too, so the world spins merrily onwards to hell.

No, I don't rate that stuff at all beyond being masterful con.

Just my opinion, and as I'm not in the market it doesn't count. But you did ask.

;-)

Rob C
« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 02:30:50 PM by Rob C » Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6052



WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 24, 2013, 10:20:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Seclusion is one thing, being in full view of the public in an apartment with floor to ceiling glass walls is something else. Svenson will win. Kravetz should have consulted Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, before filing her lawsuit.

That's certainly a novel legal theory, Doug: that the extent of my expectation of privacy in my home is determined by the size of my windows. I guess if I were Kravetz's attorney I'd try to argue something like that, but I have an idea that that theory not only isn't going to fly, it's not even going to taxi fast. How small do my windows have to be before expectation of privacy in my home is restored? Is it a sliding scale? Do I have an expectation of privacy only for the parts of me that aren't observable from the window? Fascinating stuff. Wish I could be there for the trial.
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #92 on: May 24, 2013, 10:49:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Seclusion is one thing, being in full view of the public in an apartment with floor to ceiling glass walls is something else. Svenson will win. Kravetz should have consulted Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, before filing her lawsuit.

From this article:

"Q.  A lot of nonprofessionals have walked by federal buildings and been stepped for taking a snapshot.

A.  Absolutely. If itís in public view and youíre on public property, then youíre allowed to take a picture of it.

There are permutations. I tell photographers, if youíre standing on a public sidewalk and youíre taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and itís a wide shot of the city street, thatís fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebodyís window, youíve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort."

In this article, Osterreicher is very uncertain about the legality of Svenson's photos.  He, by no means, says Svenson is on safe ground.  In the closing comment he seems to side with the residents whose pictures were taken surreptitiously with his "your home is your castle" comment.

In this article, Osterreicher makes much more firm statements in opposition to what Svenson did and in favour of the right of privacy of the residents.
Logged
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #93 on: May 24, 2013, 11:31:53 AM »
ReplyReply

From this article:

"Q.  A lot of nonprofessionals have walked by federal buildings and been stepped for taking a snapshot.

A.  Absolutely. If itís in public view and youíre on public property, then youíre allowed to take a picture of it.

There are permutations. I tell photographers, if youíre standing on a public sidewalk and youíre taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and itís a wide shot of the city street, thatís fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebodyís window, youíve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort."

In this article, Osterreicher is very uncertain about the legality of Svenson's photos.  He, by no means, says Svenson is on safe ground.  In the closing comment he seems to side with the residents whose pictures were taken surreptitiously with his "your home is your castle" comment.

In this article, Osterreicher makes much more firm statements in opposition to what Svenson did and in favour of the right of privacy of the residents.

It's not about Svenson being "on safe ground". Osterreicher also says that an argument can be made that people who live in glass walled apartments have a shaky defense if they don't draw their blinds. The point is, he would certainly have counseled Kravetz against filing a suit with such a poor chance of winning. Your points ignore the context of the situation. People who choose to live in a fish bowl, which is essentially what that building is, are inviting spectators if they don't draw their curtains. It's not your typical apartment building by a long shot. The outside is all glass. Everything is wide open to everyone on the street and in the facing buildings, unless you draw your curtains. Kravetz has an uphill battle against legal precedent. That, plus the fact that the people in Svenson's photographs can't even be identified means she'll probably lose.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #94 on: May 24, 2013, 12:26:25 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not about Svenson being "on safe ground". Osterreicher also says that an argument can be made that people who live in glass walled apartments have a shaky defense if they don't draw their blinds. The point is, he would certainly have counseled Kravetz against filing a suit with such a poor chance of winning. Your points ignore the context of the situation. People who choose to live in a fish bowl, which is essentially what that building is, are inviting spectators if they don't draw their curtains. It's not your typical apartment building by a long shot. The outside is all glass. Everything is wide open to everyone on the street and in the facing buildings, unless you draw your curtains. Kravetz has an uphill battle against legal precedent. That, plus the fact that the people in Svenson's photographs can't even be identified means she'll probably lose.

Doug, you live in a fantasy land.  Look at the closing comments of the second article I linked.  Look at his other comments.  In particular his comments about using a long telephoto lens.  Look at the remarks in the third article about the law and the context of being visible to the naked eye.  Having to use a very long lens certainly doesn't fit in to that necessity.  If the people in the photos can't be identified then how in the bloody hell do the people who were photographed know who they are?  How does Kravetz know it was her kids?  You're spouting complete and utter nonsense.  And if anyone doesn't think shooting kids in this situation clearly crosses a line then I'd have to seriously question their morality.  Maybe actually do some research before you start tossing around Supreme Court cases and dropping names.
Logged
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #95 on: May 24, 2013, 01:28:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Doug, you live in a fantasy land.  Look at the closing comments of the second article I linked.  Look at his other comments.  In particular his comments about using a long telephoto lens.  Look at the remarks in the third article about the law and the context of being visible to the naked eye.  Having to use a very long lens certainly doesn't fit in to that necessity.  If the people in the photos can't be identified then how in the bloody hell do the people who were photographed know who they are?  How does Kravetz know it was her kids?  You're spouting complete and utter nonsense.  And if anyone doesn't think shooting kids in this situation clearly crosses a line then I'd have to seriously question their morality.  Maybe actually do some research before you start tossing around Supreme Court cases and dropping names.

Again, you miss the point. Of course Svenson's subjects know who they are. The point is that no one else does. It's called anonymity. Look it up.

And I've done my research. The Supreme Court case I cited is entirely relevant. But we will see. I predict that not only will Kravetz fail in her lawsuit, but the judge will toss it out before it's even heard.

For background info, here's a Google Earth shot of the buildings in question. The Zinc Building, where Svenson's subjects live, is on the right. Svenson's building is on the left. You'll note that they're only about 200' apart. That's an important thing to remember, because it means that there's nothing in Svenson's photographs that couldn't be seen with the naked eye. So all the harping about the focal length of his lens is, in fact, immaterial. He might have used a long lens to take his pictures, but he didn't need to in order to show what he showed. Another thing worth noting is that the side of the building facing Svenson's apartment is almost all glass and that some of the units in it are concealed behind shades, as one would expect in an all-glass residence in the middle of a densely populated city like NY. That's important to remember, because when Svenson's lawyer shows the judge a photo of that street the first question out of the judge's mouth will be "why the hell didn't you keep your shades closed if you didn't want people to see you, Mrs. Kravetz?"

« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 02:57:32 PM by Doug Frost » Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #96 on: May 24, 2013, 03:09:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Again, you miss the point. Of course Svenson's subjects know who they are. The point is that no one else does. It's called anonymity. Look it up.

And I've done my research. The Supreme Court case I cited is entirely relevant. But we will see. I predict that not only will Kravetz fail in her lawsuit, but the judge will toss it out before it's even heard.

For background info, here's a Google Earth shot of the buildings in question. The Zinc Building, where Svenson's subjects live, is on the right. Svenson's building is on the left. You'll note that they're only about 200' apart. That's an important thing to remember, because it means that there's nothing in Svenson's photographs that couldn't be seen with the naked eye. So all the harping about the focal length of his lens is, in fact, immaterial. He might have used a long lens to take his pictures, but he didn't need to in order to show what he showed. Another thing worth noting is that the side of the building facing Svenson's apartment is almost all glass and that some of the units in it are concealed behind shades, as one would expect in an all-glass residence in the middle of a densely populated city like NY. That's important to remember, because when Svenson's lawyer shows the judge a photo of that street the first question out of the judge's mouth will be "why the hell didn't you keep your shades closed if you didn't want people to see you, Mrs. Kravetz?"



Where's your law degree from?
Logged
nemo295
Guest
« Reply #97 on: May 24, 2013, 03:27:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Where's your law degree from?

Where's yours? One thing's for sure, you've demonstrated zero understanding of it.
Logged
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 835



« Reply #98 on: May 24, 2013, 04:24:17 PM »
ReplyReply

WOW

 What's that story about the pot and the kettle?  Huh

 What happened to morals on Mr Svensen's part? It seems that this self centered putz has none, IMHO.

 Rich
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #99 on: May 24, 2013, 05:59:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Where's yours? One thing's for sure, you've demonstrated zero understanding of it.

No I understand it reasonably well and have pretty effectively shot down your citations.  But as it happens, I made a conscious decision not to finish law school for a variety of reasons, but was admitted, enrolled and attended.  So, back to the original question:  Where's your law degree from?

Your 4th Amendment argument has been shown to be irrelevant.  Your references to Osterreicher have been shown to be off base, and based on the links I provided it's highly unlikely he would have provided the advice you suggest to Kravetz, in particular he specifically addressed your 'close the blinds' idea and spoke against it.  What else you got? Nothing?  That's what I thought.  Done.

Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad