Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

kiwiincambodia · Post by **kiwiincambodia** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:18 pm

chicken, you should be the last person calling anyone a creep you wife bashing scumbag.

TheGrinchSR · Post by **TheGrinchSR** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:20 pm

flying chicken wrote:UT, it is an observational truth. I was awaiting for his response to see if he denies it.

GrinchSR you punk, why dont you go join your partner in crime travelling to Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia and other impoverish countries you both can think of and take naked pictures of children for a living.

Orangedragon strongly opposed his thread in the taking naked photo of children thread; he seemed to hold on grudges ever since; many also voiced the same concern in that thread too. Phucket is angry at OD because OD doesnt condone people go around taking photos of naked children *for a living*. Yet the creep still obsessed with this topic a year later!

Oh dear, there's really no need to get personal because I disagree with you. It appears you are obsessed with the "sexuality" of naked children rather than being able to take joy in a natural part of life. Perhaps, it's time for you to seek treatment for this obsession? I'm no psychologist but it appears that this kind of unhealthy preoccupation could eventually turn ugly for the children around you.

flying chicken · Post by **flying chicken** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:38 pm

kiwiincambodia wrote:chicken, you should be the last person calling anyone a creep you wife bashing scumbag.

Go back reread that thread. Just because Gonk said "I think he genuinely beat up his wife" and you bozos bought it. It doesnt bother me.

LTO · Post by **LTO** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:43 pm

phuketrichard wrote:if u ( or anyone) finds my photos in any manner sexual, then there is something wrong with you.

Yup.

TheGrinchSR · Post by **TheGrinchSR** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:51 pm

phuketrichard wrote:
vladimir wrote:Two things I think need to be addresses, and let's not forget, Richard, that just because something is lawful definitely does not mean it's moral or ethical.

1. Parents need to know who's taking the picture, and how it will be used.

2. If you're making money from the pictures you take of people, perhaps it's a good idea to give some back. If you want to photograph a model, you have to pay.

Richard, what is to stop you communicating with them AFTER you take the photo? Mmm?
1. please tell me how one finds out who the parents are of the kids on the streets and how does one even ask if one does NOT speak the language?

2. Many of my pics i take and have copies made ( like the Dump series i did) and take an pass them out to the kids,
EVERY TIME they loved them. If i take photos of kids ( there are a few shot with their parents nearby an the kids are unclothed) I wont post them but there on my site. i have given them pics and they appreciated it. Give back? u have no idea what street photography is about, but its not about paying for street shots, If u look up the previous post i made to you ( https://cambodiaexpatsonline.com/general ... 54-90.html
it answers your question.
As to making money.... lol give me a break, my $$ comes from advertising an commercial work NOT what i enjoy shooting

FC
as to ur post ...."can only be viewed with his secret circle of friend"
I have no secret circle;

my photos are on my site, nothing hidden and no one has ever made any negative comments ( except u and G&T on k440)
if u ( or anyone) finds my photos in any manner sexual, then there is something wrong with you. Do you find the photo posted, offensive?
cause it is typical of what i shoot

I supposed ur also against certain words being spoken as well?

Phucket is angry at OD
total bullshit, i have nothing against OD , he has his opinion, i have mine

i ONLY posted this cause it is relative to today nothing to do with before ( the article was just written) and the future of street photography

How do u feel about street cams on every corner tracking ur every move?

Why cant u and vlad discuss this without getting personal?

I think people get personal over this issue because they think that they're protecting children. How this might be true - I have no idea. For more than a century photographers took photos of children, adults and just about anything else with no societal resistance at all. There is no long line of modern day adults complaining about being photographed as kids and the psychological damage it caused - mainly because it didn't do any damage. Then the media brought the term "paedophile" to constant use and stupid people decided that there had to be something of the paedophile in the photographer.

It's the same reason that men in the West are no longer entering the teaching profession in significant numbers; it's become de rigeur to assume that a man who hangs around kids must have impure motives.

It is, of course, nonsense. To see paedophilia where none exists is very similar to those people who see homosexual behaviour where none exists. It's become reasonably common knowledge that the homophobe in general is not scared of gay people, they're scared of themselves. I suspect that the same is true for those who find paedophilia everywhere too.

Children need protecting from sexual abuse. They don't need protecting from cameras. If someone is confused between a camera and someone's genitals... they should consult a biology textbook immediately.

Advocatus Diaboli · Post by **Advocatus Diaboli** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Old discussion and boring. You are taking it too seriously again. Such topics always go wrong.

vladimir · Post by **vladimir** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:34 pm

My issue is not so much about protecting children as common courtesy and economic ethics.

First, Richard says he doesn't want to corrupt the photo environment. The next story is that he 'cannot' find the parents.

Richard, here's a helping hand for morons:

a) take the picture
b) approach the subjects, and ask to speak to the parents
c) pay a fair commission

The very fact that you brought this up with so many prepared counter-arguments, I find at best exploitative, and at worst, creepy.

Your self-confessed internet history of heavy drugs and tarts doesn't help.

To everyone: The link between photography and the potential for pornography...if you don't understand, ask your father why he married into his family.DUH!

And the fact that we are in Cambodia...need any more hints?

Advocatus Diaboli · Post by **Advocatus Diaboli** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:44 pm

vladimir wrote:
Richard, here's a helping hand for morons:

a) take the picture
b) approach the subjects, and ask to speak to the parents
c) pay a fair commission

And don't forget contracts in English, Khmer and Vietnamese. Make sure that they can read and write and take your lawyer with you.

vladimir · Post by **vladimir** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:52 pm

Lawyer? Dude! We don't want it to get worse!

Advocatus Diaboli · Post by **Advocatus Diaboli** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:56 pm

What ? You suggested to approach the parents. If you are approaching these kind of parents offering them money as you also have suggested you definitely need a lawyer.

Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

Re: Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

Re: Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

Re: Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

Re: Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

Re: Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

Re: Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

Re: Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

Re: Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

Re: Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

Re: Why street photography is facing a moment of truth

Who is online

Register/Login to CEO with your Social Media Account: