share.triangle.com - People Shots - Comments

good point

Art_Wannabe — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:41:56 -0400

I had not thought of the fact that in some situations the subject might want to be identified or have the right to be identified over-and-above as being a generic member of their group.

Thanks for raising that important point.

People in public

Java55 — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:49:53 -0400

The general rule of thumb I often use is if the person (or people) are putting on some kind of public demonstrations or performances I will make my best attempts at giving these people names to go with their photos, unlike many photographers who for instance, taking Native American pow-wows as an example, would just label these folks as some kind of 'Generic Indians' without even giving any of these people the diginity of having a name - that's just wrong in my opinion. As for just random people in a crowd, if the background or the thing that is occupying these people's interests is the main focal point or subject of the photo, its often a toss-up for me - usually there has to be more than 3 random people for the spectators to go nameless, but that's just my personal opinions concerning this unique subject.

shot from above

Art_Wannabe — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:20:07 -0400

I've had luck shooting people from above. It often seems to get an interesting and flattering angle. That may be why leesc's photo works especially well.

People in public

Art_Wannabe — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:08:54 -0400

I'm ambivalent about shooting passers-by in public, so I'm wondering what other people are thinking. As I understand it, if someone is in public, taking a picture has the same legal constraints as looking at them, which is to say there are no constraints around taking a picture of someone and then publishing or posting for comment. The only 2 constraints I know of are (1) using that picture to construct an endorsement which the subject did not approve of, or (2) if the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Oddly enough, the photographer owns the photo, and no one else can use it in any form without permission, even if it is posted on the Internet.

Although the legal constraints for taking and using pictures of people are fewer than many people think, it seems that photographers in general follow some guielines. I'm trying to get a better sense of what these guidelines are. For example, photographers seem to generally get people's permission to use the photo if they are recognizable in the photo. I'm not sure what "use" and "recognizable" mean here.

My example is that I was taking pictures at the Museum of Life and Science yesterday, and I have (to me) a pretty interesting picture of a kid using the light maze. The kid's face is obscured, but not the printing on his tee shirt! Given the time and place, could we say he is recognizable?

I'm trying to use a golden rule of "publish others as you would have them publish you." Using that rule, I'd post the photo. On the other hand, I can't read people's minds as to what they would mind.

Any thoughts?

People Shots

leesc_1998 — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:23:21 -0400

I don't have a lot of luck with people photographs normally, but at my daughter's wedding I got pretty lucky with some of my shots. This is one of my favorites. Any comments or suggestions?

I don't have a lot of luck with people photographs normally, but at my daughter's wedding I got pretty lucky with some of my shots.…