RE: [Leica] quiet cameras in cathedrals?

[Jem Kime <jem.kime@cwcom.net>]

Bob,

You're right, my original post failed to convey what became apparent later 
on. I must learn to re-read my postings before sending them, probably wait 
a while too.

I think that seeking permission to carry out all sorts of documentary or 
reportage photography is obviously unworkable. My secondary post (which 
should have been included in the first) was to advocate respecting the 
privacy of those engaged in private ritual or meeting, something I feel 
that has been acknowledged in subsequent posts.

But in the context of the original post from Mitch, it did not seem that we 
were talking of "documentary, reportage, photojournalism, and press 
photography ", we were talking of a visitor to a foriegn city wandering 
into a cathedral (during a service) and expecting to photograph people 
engaged in their worship. I hope we can share that understanding.

Jem

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Bob Walkden [SMTP:bobwalkden@hotmail.com]
Sent:	14 September 2000 21:24
To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject:	RE: [Leica] quiet cameras in cathedrals?

Hi,

The comment that sparked this thread was "I have to say that for anyone to
have the insensitivity to want to photograph others in the act of worship
beggars belief!". We appear to have established quite quickly, in your
reply, that wanting to photograph others in the act of worship is a
perfectly legitimate desire.

How any particular photographer approaches this is a different matter
altogether, and there are many perfectly respectable ways of doing it,
including ways that don't require permission up front.

I'm afraid your recommended approach would kill almost all documentary,
reportage, photojournalism, and press photography stone dead.

Bob

>From: Jem Kime <jem.kime@cwcom.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm glad to hear you'll be sensitive and sorry to hear you won't be
>arranging permission before going.
>My point was that humanitarian photography would seem to neccesitate some
>sort of courtesy extended before taking pictures, like arranging that it 
is
>acceptable, especially when photographing people's essentially private
>moments.
>
>I agree with Greg's, and your, comments about understanding and
>communication, humanistic photography and all. I'm certainly no 
protagonist
>of flowers, trees and sunsets. I'm all for understanding and wanting to
>learn more about others but I seem to have a different set of values as to
>what is the best way to go about securing those pictures.
>
>The difficulty of taking your stance that 'people can shake their heads if
>they don't want to be photographed' is that you offer no-one the chance to
>think about what you're doing, they may welcome the exposure you could
>offer them if they were made aware of what your motives were. Then again
>there could well be others who have eyes closed, backs turned, or their
>attention elsewhere who would object but have inadvertantly forfeited 
their
>supposed right to veto your shot. It seems a rather lopsided way of
>approaching subjects to me.
>
>cheers,
>jem

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.