photographing children - feedback needed

positivenote

hi guys,
im in the process of researching a paper for college. The theme of it is photographing children and how the process has changed over the past number of years. Imcurrently trying to get information about experiences that people may have had, difficulties some of you may have encountered or issues that may have changed over the past few years. Primarily i was hoping to base my study on candid shots put im also looking to explore portraiture aswell. if anyone has any information opinions on this changing element of photography that they wouldnt mind sharing with me or if anyone would be interested in answering a questionaire at a later stange could you please pm me with your contact details.

Regards and Thanks

Rojo

you have to include some points on Jill Greenberg's portraits of crying children...

positivenote

they are great images alright and extremely striking

Phototoxin

Personally I'm afraid. People now a days will ring the rozzers and get you arrested on terroism, paedophilia or something stupid. Like there was a dad who had his kid in a pram. Some woman reported him as a paedophile. (it was in AH on boardsie) so its a bit scary. Tis gone too far.

I think the crying kids pictures are bad. I dont think that they are ethical

melekalikimaka

I used to do it weekly for governemnt body, never any real issues, one or two over jestures the children displayed, i may put it up as an example but dunno... i felt it harmless but it was regarded slightly explicit to put it nicely by the media outlet used by said body.

Fionn

Child photography has become a bit of a minefield these days - on one hand you have people getting hysterical if a camera is produced in the presence of a child while paradoxically on the other hand you can find pictures of children in any pose or setting in newspapers, journals, magazines stock photography sites photo sharing etc.
I believe in public parks in Britain that there are signs up proclaiming 'No Photography' how this actually protects children or makes them safer isn't ever made very clear.
I remember my sister telling me she wanted to take pictures of her grand children splashing about in the local swimming pool only to be told sternly by the attendants that there was a ban on photography in the swimming pool.
Its a sad reflection on society that the over zealous guardians of the PC brigade can prevent parents and grandparents capturing images of their own families enjoying themselves.
I cover a good deal of public events in my home town and if there are kids there (put on display by their proud parents) on such things as St. patricks day parade or other celebrations i will always include them in the shots. I believe anyone, adult or child out in the public view are always a possible subject.
If the PC brigade had their way we might look back on the this period and might get the impression that there were no ordinary kids around on our streets at all!!
I've seen those crying kids photos and what gets me about them is - one would have been emotive and perhaps you could empathise with the subject most parents will tell you what the instinct would be if you viewed one of these photographs, but like dozens of them is like conveyer-belt art!! it loses the impact and maybe people might think its more contrived and perhaps a bit abusive of the subjects.
I've taken some photographs of children in a not too happy state and some of these can be attractive but i guess it's a fine line between getting a shot you like and one that is certainly un-nerving for a lot of people.

Paulw

I've photographed a number of kids sports events - anything from under 10s football to junior show jumping. Kids of all ages. I've never had a problem and nothing has ever been said. In saying that, I've almost always been there for a job (either a paper or such work).

I think paranoia is rife and it's a shame. Kids are so expressive and so much fun to photograph. I always enjoy photographing nieces/nephews and friend's kids when out.

I do have one or two candid kids shots too - here's one I really like -

delly

I choose not to put any images of my young daughter on the web, and in fact actually refrain from putting myself up as well. I guess I could be considered a part of the tinfoil hat brigade.

Another reason however is that I have my hands deep in the online world most days, and tbh there are more fuked up people out there than respectable ones. And yes, there are people out there that manipulate innocent pictures into something that satisfies there perverse needs.

smelltheglove

I wold never refrain from outting a picture of my kids up, I am so proud of them and love people seeing a good picture of them. It is very different now though, I took my camera to my nieces stage show and was told no pics allowed as nobody can be sure who you are taking the pic of.

Also I uploaded some pics of my nephew to see if people would hire him as a model through the shots as his parents were sending them to an agency. It sparked a bit of an argument and even a poll on the humanities board. It is a very sore subject for some people but at the end of the day years ago if more everyday people had access to display their beautiful children they would have taken advantage too.

I have boundaries, I shioeld my 6 yr old daughter when she is in a swim suit, I would never allow anyone to photograph her like that, its such a pity the pervs have us so worried.

positivenote

thanks for the feedback so far guys. The more feedback the better. If you would rather send me pm's with opinions and or stories of experiences that would be great also. im also hoping to get as many questionaires out as possible over the next few weeks to gather some research.
THanks again

trooney

delly wrote: »

I choose not to put any images of my young daughter on the web, and in fact actually refrain from putting myself up as well. I guess I could be considered a part of the tinfoil hat brigade.

Another reason however is that I have my hands deep in the online world most days, and tbh there are more fuked up people out there than respectable ones. And yes, there are people out there that manipulate innocent pictures into something that satisfies there perverse needs.

Thats a very strong thing to say? What are you basing this on? Are you saying that the majority of people on this forum are degenerates? IMO its this type of statement that feeds the tabloid alarmist mind of lots of people who aren't capable of making their own minds up and just follow the heard.
Do people really think they are protecting their children by doing this? What are people afraid of? That if a picture of their child appears anywhere on the Internet the child will be abducted? The statictics tell us that most cases of abuse are perpetrated by somebody known to the victim.

delly

trooney wrote: »

Thats a very strong thing to say?

I don't think so?

trooney wrote: »

What are you basing this on?

The amount of websites I have visited over my many years on the internet.

trooney wrote: »

Are you saying that the majority of people on this forum are degenerates

No, I was equateing that to the internet as a whole, not to this specific website.

trooney wrote: »

IMO its this type of statement that feeds the tabloid alarmist mind of lots of people who aren't capable of making their own minds up and just follow the heard.

I can't help it if people can't make up there own mind, and I won't restrict my viewpoint to save them.

trooney wrote: »

Do people really think they are protecting their children by doing this?

Maybe so.

trooney wrote: »

What are people afraid of?

The crazy internet people

trooney wrote: »

That if a picture of their child appears anywhere on the Internet the child will be abducted?

I doubt it.

trooney wrote: »

The statistics tell us that most cases of abuse are perpetrated by somebody known to the victim.

We are not talking about phisical abuse here, more so somebody asking a picture of a child and gaining some form of sexuel relief from it.

CabanSail

delly wrote: »

We are not talking about phisical abuse here, more so somebody asking a picture of a child and gaining some form of sexuel relief from it.

That is quite a strange statement to make if you examine it. If the original image was not meant to be sexually enticing in any way, as the images of children we are discussing here are, then there is not a problem. The fact that a minority of people find strange things give them sexual pleasure. For example some people have a fetish for feet. Should all images of feet be restricted because of this?

If you start going down the road of trying to predict how everyone will perceive an image you present, then it will drive you crazy. I take images for how they affect me and hope others get pleasure from them as well. I do not define what form that pleasure should take as it's beyond my control.

trooney

Your argument is somewhat spurious. You are saying that because of the amount of websites you have visited over the years you believe most Internet users to be deranged in some manner? Of course you must also believe that you fall in to this demographic too, if you have indeed made use of these sites?
I think it would be fair to take the users of boards.ie as a fair cross section of Internet users in general and apply your argument to there - i.e. in that most users would be deemed, by your rules, to be undesirables.
Nobody is asking that you restrict your view. Just that you look at the whole picture and make an informed decision. Rather than the knee-jerk reaction which seems to happen all too often these days.
People are capable of making up their own mind. The just need to be informed. They just need to take the time to look at a situation with intelligent eyes. Not to listen to the tabloid information services that are so belligerently installed as the 'keepers of the truth'.

delly

The fact is that there are people out there who will edit and superimpose child pictures onto other pornography images. These people exist, these people are real. Sure, the actual changes of of this happening are quite remote, and even then there is no way you would know it is happening, but I would prefer not to take the change. I'm not from the PC brigade, more from the seen the web in many forms and the people who frequent it brigade.

melekalikimaka

delly wrote: »

The fact is that there are people out there who will edit and superimpose child pictures onto other pornography images. These people exist, these people are real. Sure, the actual changes of of this happening are quite remote, and even then there is no way you would know it is happening, but I would prefer not to take the change. I'm not from the PC brigade, more from the seen the web in many forms and the people who frequent it brigade.

I find your arguements pretty far fetched, but to be honest I dont have a child so I hae no idea how my opinion might change if I had my own...

delly

trooney wrote: »

Your argument is somewhat spurious. You are saying that because of the amount of websites you have visited over the years you believe most Internet users to be deranged in some manner? Of course you must also believe that you fall in to this demographic too, if you have indeed made use of these sites? I think it would be fair to take the users of boards.ie as a fair cross section of Internet users in general and apply your argument to the there - i.e. in that most users would be deemed, by your rules, to be undesirables.
Nobody is asking that you restrict your view. Just that you look at the whole picture and make an informed decision. Rather than the knee-jerk reaction which seems to happen all too often these days.
People are capable of making up their own mind. The just need to be informed. They just need to take the time to look at a situation with intelligent eyes. Not to listen to the tabloid information services that are so belligerently installed as the 'keepers of the truth'.

I have been to many sites indeed that are pretty fuked up alright. I'm not talking anything child related here, but ones that show people online are quite different from people you'd meet on the street.

You say that people are capable of making there own minds up yet, you feel you must continue questioning my viewpoint and prove it wrong. Why can't you accept that I have my viewpoint and you have yours.

TBH I think you have some issue or agenda with tabloid news services and this is borne out in your comments.

Paulw

It's an interesting arguement, but one that I can't see any logic in.

I remember back in the 90s, when the internet was very young in Ireland. There was a book launch by an Irish writer about how useful the internet will be to Ireland. A certain TD was asked along as a guest speaker. He was in favour of only acedemic use of the internet for research and not for general public use. He quoted a statistic that 80% of the information on the internet was porn.

When the author spoke next he went back to that statistic. He said that the TD was correct - 80% of the internet is porn - if you're looking for porn. Otherwise, the amount of porn on the net was actually less than 1%.

You can always find what you look for on the internet. But, in the same way, you can find what you look for in book shops, on TV, on radio and in the press.

Children's photos don't only just appear online. You can find them in magazines, newspapers, books, TV, etc. Not posting your photos online isn't going to do much, in the largest scheme of things.

I think it's a sad world when you can't take a photo of a child. Children are so photographic and so full of emotion. I guess it somewhat goes back to the time when people didn't want their photo taken because they thought you were going to capture their soul/spirit.

Just my view/experience.

melekalikimaka

delly wrote: »

TBH I think you have some issue or agenda with tabloid news services and this is borne out in your comments.

if fairness to him and most other posters who have replied to this comment, it would seem you have the issue with tabloid news services, they seemed to have borne a sense of....for want of a better word, paranoia into you.

delly

melekalikimaka wrote: »

if fairness to him and most other posters who have replied to this comment, it would seem you have the issue with tabloid news services, they seemed to have borne a sense of....for want of a better word, paranoia into you.

I would agree that it could be described as paranoia, but from my own experiences over the years rather than that imposed by others.

Paulw

delly wrote: »

I have been to many sites indeed that are pretty fuked up alright. I'm not talking anything child related here, but ones that show people online are quite different from people you'd meet on the street.

How do you know what the people on the street think/do? How do you know they are different from "people online"?

People are people, no matter where they are, no matter where you meet them.

I personally think the internet is brilliant. It's a great way to make contacts with people you otherwise would never meet. Just look at this small forum as an example. People here discuss photography. Many have met. Some become friends.

We here are all "people online". Are we really that different from people you meet on the street? Could you walk down a street, and pick out those who are "people online" as opposed to those who are not?

trooney

delly wrote: »

The fact is that there are people out there who will edit and superimpose child pictures onto other pornography images. These people exist, these people are real. Sure, the actual changes of of this happening are quite remote, and even then there is no way you would know it is happening, but I would prefer not to take the change. I'm not from the PC brigade, more from the seen the web in many forms and the people who frequent it brigade.

While I appreciate the sentiment behind what you say, this argument holds little or no sway. Why the same could be said about pictures of adults. How many people are worried if their own picture appears somewhere that some non-deviant, hetrosexual Internet user will cut and paste a their photo in exactly the same way. There are ways and means to protect your kids. But wrapping them up in so much cotton wool I'm not sure is the right way. Is it possible this could instill a skewed view of the world and a lack of trust in a developing mind?
I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the world is over-run by sociopaths. Maybe I've missed something. But maybe I'm not wrong. Would you as fervently oppose the use of CCTV? After all, if the large majority of Internet users are deviant, as you suggest, then surely its a reasonable assumtion to make that every section of society has this same percentile of unwanted types. Including the people who view the images captured on CCTV... ??

daymobrew

The paranoid aren't only on the internet, as this person found out in Middlesborough.

delly

Paulw wrote: »

How do you know what the people on the street think/do? How do you know they are different from "people online"?

Well the people on the street will walk on by with no interference to you, whereas people online will tell you what they want, or what they are into. Its not to say that they can't be the same person, but when online, people feel invincible and will often act differently than they would when face to face with someone. This is where the term 'keyboard warrior' comes from.

trooney wrote: »

While I appreciate the sentiment behind what you say, this argument holds little or no sway.

I'm not actually trying to argue the point, just putting accross my own tinfoil hat view on the matter.

trooney wrote: »

Why the same could be said about pictures of adults. How many people are worried if their own picture appears somewhere that some non-deviant, hetrosexual Internet user will cut and paste a their photo in exactly the same way.

The difference would be that adult porn is freely available to all and sundry.

trooney wrote: »

Would you as fervently oppose the use of CCTV? After all, if the large majority of Internet users are deviant, as you suggest, then surely its a reasonable assumption to make that every section of society has this same percentile of unwanted types. Including the people who view the images captured on CCTV... ??

No I wouldn't oppose the use of CCTV.

Look, at the end of the day I'm not asking anybody to have a similar view to me, and was originally responding to the OP's request. Call it far out, off the wall or just plain crazy, but its my view and I do have the right to hold it.

CabanSail

What is the Tin Foil Hat?

Back to the OP .... I would fill out one of your surveys.

delly

CabanSail wrote: »

What is the Tin Foil Hat?

Its a slang term for people who are a little on the paranoid side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

positivenote

Thanks for the replies so far guys. Once again if anyone would be able to ans a few questions in a survey could they please pm me, and thaks to those that have done so already.
regards

Phototoxin

I find your arguements pretty far fetched, but to be honest I don't have a child so I hae no idea how my opinion might change if I had my own...

no its true people do 'make' child pron images. In the UK there is a seperate law because AFAIK people have photoshopped such images but got away with it because they were not 'real' so they needed to change the law. I dont know what the situation is here.

I would like to take pics of my kids some day if I ever have some, but other peoples kids I'm not interested in as i mentioned before. Also I'm not into people maybe that's another reason, I like nature really.

democrates

The prime consideration has to be the welfare of minors, that said only extremists deal in absolutes...

I don't think many would debate the view that conservative opinion has become more vocal on the general issue of adult-minor interaction, for starters the backlash is no surprise given the revelations of child abuse that have rocked western nations over the last few years. We can slate the media for creating mass hysteria, stirring up the fear of a paedophile behind every bush and general suspicion so that for example many men would now be afraid to help a distressed child lost in a shop.

Perhaps the worst consequence of the over-simplified backlash is the diversion of resources into punishing and attempting to rehabilitate cases which we may find odious but are in fact victimless thought crimes by people who present no risk to others - at the expense of preventing real predators from harming innocents and of supporting victims of abuse. For example the usefulness of the sex offenders register is diminished when it mixes paedophiles and rapists with greasy anoraks who look at pictures of naked kids online or for that matter some young guy who thought she was old enough to consent to some petting because they met in an over-18's establishment. Maybe the register should have a number of levels that reflect victim impact. Now that I think of it is there a register for murderers? I think a fair and balanced approach will take some time.

Anyway I personally won't take photographs if they include minors I don't know, unless they are only a few pixels or somehow it's in their best interests to do so. Any I've taken were with parental consent. It's regrettable to miss out on the "kodak moment" so often, but then so what if there's no permanent record, that's a nice to have rather than a necessity.

The best shots I've gotten so far in trying to learn the art were of my niece (justifying the 85mm f1.2 imho). Her dad suggested showing them to professionals for proper feedback, I explained the only way I would was to show a print in person, because we all know what could happen if you publish online. Even if the odds of misuse are miniscule she's not my daughter so I don't feel entitled to make that call.

It's getting ever easier to capture and share images or any type of content. We no longer have a national censor, I guess reflecting the futility and undesirability of attempting absolute control of consumption. This new ability to publish worldwide can only increase the odds of misuse, so greater caution about content production in the first case is understandable, though at another level regrettable:

By Clare Mulvany on spunout.ie

Photos alone are not enough to make social change happen. Action is required. But action can only happen if there is awareness, and that is where photography can play a huge role. Photos are a way into debate, to catalyse opinion, to provoke a response, and if done well; they can I believe, inspire action. That then for me is one of my goals, blazen large in my own rectangular frame.

So, is awareness of the issues facing minors being reduced due to changes in attitudes toward strangers with cameras? For starters is it actually true that fewer photos of minors are being taken today by adults they don't know, after all the amount of cameras in use has increased and not everyone gives in to the perceived adverse atmosphere like me. Regardless of that, minors themselves are now sharing images by phone and on social networking websites. They can publish from age 14 or thereabouts, younger if they lie. Then there are photo journalists, it's hard to believe they'd back off the shot that tells the story but again that's pure conjecture on my part.

Bullying, alcohol, drugs, sex, suicide, exam pressure, isolation, stars in their eyes versus recession reality, the impression from the msm is that things are going from bad to worse for our youth and all the politically correct polemics don't make a lick of difference. Or maybe it's worse, maybe the more that pillars society demonise something the more cachet it creates for naturally rebellious youth.

On the upside some journalists and talk show hosts rationally analyse rather than sensationalise and there are good online discussions of various issues, in fact boards.ie is a prime example of new technology as an antidote to isolation of minors, here they can interact with each other and adults in a moderated environment, from personal issues to photography there's a decent community taking the time to give advice and encouragement.

Tarakiwa

My son plays with his local U13 football team every weekend and as the proud parent I always bring my camera along. BUT before taking it out I always ask the Ref and the opposing team coach / manager if they mind me taking pictures. I have not found any problems doing it but I would not risk it without asking!

My better half works in a well known chain of Gyms and they tell parents photographing their kids in the pool etc that it is "illegal". I think this might be overstating the facts a bit. I am sure that they have a policy that says you cant use a camera in their facilities but to say that it is illegal is probably quite strong!

positivenote

to say its illegal to photograph your own kids in a public swimming pool is a bit of a shock to me tbh. If there is any evidence of this legislation i would be keen to find out where i could find it.
on a sidenote i have heard from a third party that some photo processing chemists are refusing to print photos of children in the bath? has anyone any evidence of this happening as i for one have been 'fondly' embarressed by my mam on numerous occassions taking out the photos of me and my younger bro sharing a bath as kids, are we at a stage where this will not happen to this generation of kids?

smelltheglove

10 years ago I had photos printed of my brother in the bath. 6 yrs ago with a film camera I took pics of my dd. She was about 14mths old and in the 30 odd pics obviously she was in a variety of poses around the house, playing and that. In one photo she had taken off her nappy, she was playing on the chair and bits could be seen, completely unintentional and quite obviously so as she was in a burst of laughter. I had the pictures printed no prob.

There were a few nce ones so I gave the roll of film to her daddy who went to get them printed for himself and when he collected he was told the there was a picture the chemist refused to print as it breached their rules. Whatever was said I was told was in quite an embarrassing manner which I was surprised by as they were printed for me no probs. It was an obvious accident also.

Covey

I take lots of candid/impromtu shots of kids, at play on the street and elsewhere, the vast majority unknown to me, without much bother.

I'll gladly fill out your survey.

AnCatDubh

Some posts in here may be relevant here

My own post;

Have thought about this a little and am still weighing it up in my head. I think it is an irrational fear that people have. The reason I describe it as irrational is that when you compare the actual risk of something bad happening as a direct consequence of having your photos online - it is relatively low risk, however such consequence is catastrophic. If you were in the risk management business and this was a business risk, you would probably monitor the situation but take little action as the risk of it happening is so remote.

In fact maybe we have more to worry about by who's living in your neighbourhood than who's looking at you flickr stream. Having said that your children are in the physical realm which means that you can control (to a large extent) the environment that they inhabit. Given the emotional involvement that we all have to the little ones, we are kept satisfied in the knowledge that with our children we know (or at least we think) that we can keep them safe from such bad things as are going through peoples minds as they read this thread.

Switch over to the virtual world of the internet (flickr, etc.) where in reality we don't have much control over who accesses the representation of your children (image), and that's a very scary thought. You've just lost control and consequential safety. This also explains why there is a certain amount of comfort to be derived from keeping your children's image private, or family & friends only. In so far as you are still in relative control.

Consider this hypothetical scenario. You've just taken some wonderful photos at the recent St. Patricks Day parade. Not surprising they include images of children parading and in viewing from the crowd. Smashing images. You don't know the subjects. They are in a public place and parading so no presumption of privacy. Legally you don't have any worries.

Would you be happier to post pictures of these parade pictures than to post pictures of your own child / children.

I haven't done the research but i suspect the answer to the large part is that yes you would be happier (or perhaps less concerned) posting pictures of the parade including children not known to you. What's the reason? Again I haven't done the research but my thesis would be that at a deep personal level you experience no threat by posting the parade pictures with unknown children however you experience the anxiety of the 'what if..... happens' when considering your own children. This isn't particularly selfish but the natural human reaction of a parent to protect their young. It happens all throughout the animal kingdom - sorry to say that in this regard as a society we haven't really raised ourselves out of the lower animal classes on this one.

And as for me? I post them, but am in the category of allowing family and friends only to view. I recognise it as irrational but it is such a powerful emotion.

Does this all make sense?

I've advanced a little beyond this position at this point in time in that i have become a little more rational (i think). My approach is now largely prompted by my own argument above i.e. would you publish online a photo of a nameless child exactly the same as your own child. Both scenarios get the same consideration.

positivenote

hi guys,
im doing a research paper at the moment and need people to answer a questionnaire for me. It wont take more than 5 mins and is on the subject of children and photography. A few of you have PM'd me earlier in the year and i will be sending it out to you (really sorry bout the delay) but will others please PM me with your email details if you are willing to take part.
The only outstanding issue is that i need completed questionnaires back to me before Friday morning so i can get working on compiling the feedback.
much obliged

I have been granted an extension to this element of my paper... friday week (sep 4) is know my deadline.

AnCatDubh

merged with older thread. replies to the request for assistance directly to positivenote by pm.

thank you.