Rongnongno Loc: FL

Did you? What prevented you to use your camera?

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

The cost of replacement in a violent assignment.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I’ve had a few street opportunities not taken when I sensed that someone in frame noticed me and didn’t seem pleased to be included. Sad because their expression might have added to the shot.

hammond

Yes.
Particularly at religious sites around the world.

Not being religious myself, but wanting to respect the rules and beliefs of others, there have been many times when I've simply had to accept that taking a picture of sacred venues would be inappropriate.
But I can't say that I've complied with the rules 100% of the time... basically adhering to the rule that if no one else is there to admonish me, I'll discreetly take the picture.

On the flip side, I then feel like sharing these images publicly would be inappropriate as well, so the pictures themselves are really only ever viewed by me. Guess I'm pretty selfish in that regard, but also don't feel anyone was hurt, nothing was damaged, and no one was ultimately offended.

No harm, no foul?

I must confess that even when I am unable to fight back the urge to take pictures in such areas, I feel some sense of guilt having known that I photographed a 'forbidden' subject.

+++

And certainly there are people all over the world who don't appreciate having their picture taken by a stranger, let alone a foreigner.

In one particular incident, I was in Oman and hiked solo up a deep canyon, where at the base of the canyon stood a small hill with a nice peak. Recognizing the opportunity to get a cool vantage point at the top, I climbed up and discovered a small remote village on the other side. A community of about 10-15 homes, rustic fences, and a small mosque - an incredible photo appeared in my mind, and I instinctively pulled out my DSLR and framed the image.

I think the sun reflected off my lens, and one of the children playing in the yard pointed up at me and instantly about 15 children and a handful of adults were staring up at me. Several of the men started yelling and waving at me: I couldn't understand their words, but they made it clear that they didn't want me taking a picture of their community.

One one hand, I was probably a good 20 minutes scramble from where they were to my perch above their community, on the other hand, they certainly felt as though I was invading their property. Whether I was legally 'allowed' to take such a picture was not really in my mind. And given that I was having an otherwise very relaxed day entirely alone in a sublime wilderness area, I fought back my urge to take the picture from behind a hidden pile of rocks atop the small mountain.

So what ultimately prevents me from taking pictures where I may be considered an 'intruder'?
I guess some of it has to do with my feeling that photography is something that I enjoy. I feel a certain kind of 'flow-state' when I'm engaged in capturing a subject that compels me. When I feel like I'm 'stealing' a shot, I am rushed and distracted, and no longer enjoy the experience.

I'm sure there are photographic journalists who get a thrill from taking pictures of things that are condemned, and photography can play a pivotal role in documenting social injustices that should definitely be exposed to the world despite the objections of others.

But I'm certainly not at that level of commitment. Even when I was in Hong Kong during the current protests, I felt a bit anxious in taking pictures of the demonstrations: largely in fear that it could cause problems for me in China or upon attempting to leave the country.

I guess this is something each photographer must decide on their own, and it certainly extends into an exploration of one's personal morals, priorities, and beliefs.

As Socrates famously said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Perhaps this is one of the reasons I find photography to be such a fulfilling hobby, as it pushes me to examine the world not only from behind the glass of my camera, but through the lens of greater social behaviors as well.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

As a young photojournalist for UPI (united press international) I helped cover the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968. We started out using our assigned Nikon F's, until we ran (in some cases directly into) Chicago's finest in blue uniforms. They made it quite clear we were not to use our camera's photographing them "taking care of" the demonstrators. If we dared defy them, the result was the loss of our camera's, literally, they first meet the night stick, then urban sidewalks, then broken open, film throw out, and then the battered remains of the camera were handed back to us with a smile. We were then searched for exposed film and that was then opened and deposited in the nearest trash can.
After several days of this UPI issued us disposable kodak instamatic camera's, you remember, those little toy camera's, and then we were, once again, sent out again into the fray. For some reason these camera's fared far better fates than their predecessors.

PaulBa Loc: Cardiff, Wales

In a village in northern Nepal where all eyes were on us as we walked through. They were not unfriendly they were not threatening I just could not bring myself to photograph the poverty.

Took lots of great pictures once I reached the village where the school we supported stood (sadly it was destroyed in an earthquake a few years later).

hammond

I've considered this form of censorship before, and feel it begs an app to be developed that automatically ports pictures from the camera to a mobile device, and stores them in the cloud. Nikon's SnapBridge is pretty close to this.

Not sure what the authorities would resort to from there - probably would still destroy your gear, but at least the photos you already snapped would be preserved.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Unfortunately in 1968 that was not an option.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

I seem to instinctively know when I 'm out of bounds in that situation. And ... YES, I have felt intrusive & unwanted ......a "Trespasser " to be precise and wishing I had been More Thoughtful & Respectful as a result.

Examples: Crime Scenes,Funerals ,Religious Observances, Family Tragedies , Unspeakable & Graphic Images better left for the crime labs and not for public consumption ....Ever.

You get my drift and so yeah.......we know when we're out of bounds usually.
Thanks for the conversation on this subject matter. It matters greatly to others and should always be in the back of our heads when dealing with sensitive issues of a graphic nature.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

On the religious issue, is what you are describing a small unobtrusive chapel hidden away from the world, or on of those massive edifices flaunting to the world? When groups build something using half of their GDP for 10 years to celebrate Mumbo-Jumbo, or whomever, they want the world to see how they are glorifying their creator/guardian. Take the picture, post/print it where ever you wish, and ignore the delusion which brought it about.

User ID

If I am NOT feeling like an intruder then
I wouldn't bother making any pictures. If
not intruding, I'd be just adding one more
to the extant zillions of pointless photos
already available.

OTOH when I am considering making the
the picture, I apply common sense before
finalizing my decision.

Cameraman

OK, so you are against some folks who believe their icons should not be photographed. Does your logic also extend to all the Christian churches which ban photographers from using the flash inside the church and also not photograph at certain times during the wedding? Or are you saying that one should ignore the rules only at these "other' religious places where they are "celebrating their Mumbo jumbo" and promoting their "delusion"?


On the religious issue, is what you are describing a small unobtrusive chapel hidden away from the world, or on of those massive edifices flaunting to the world? When groups build something using half of their GDP for 10 years to celebrate Mumbo-Jumbo, or whomever, they want the world to see how they are glorifying their creator/guardian. Take the picture, post/print it where ever you wish, and ignore the delusion which brought it about.

jrmwash

You are certainly entitled to your opinions but bigotry is not appreciated.

User ID

Lotta atteetood there, but not bigotry.
All religions, plus the idea of exalted
beings, were equally bashed. No harm
no foul.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

When I was doing 40-55 weddings a year, I would, or a stringer, always go to the rehearsal for two reasons. First of all, to meet all the bridal party, parents and family, it was a good time to go over our expectations, and of course, see how the wedding was going to proceed. Second, it was our aim to meet the person actually officiating the wedding. We worked together to create a seamless transition into the next days event. If there was a disagreement I would state my reasons but the person in charge always was right, no matter what, they were in charge. Sometimes they would see my point of view and we would be allowed to do something new, sometimes not.
On the day of the wedding their were no surprises, no issues, and we were not intruder's but part of the event. I and my stringers were held to the highest degree of conduct, that included dress pants, a tie and sports coat, my ladies dresses to the nine's. If their was a prayer, we prayed to and did not shoot. We were part of the ceremony, not a stand alone component.
That is how I built my business and stayed in business for over 40 years. I am proud of our wedding service and to this day, when ever I run into one of our brides, it is always good memories to discuss.