Dublin again

thebaz

Seams like I havn't posted here in a while .
Was up at Al's brilliant end of year exhibition at the NCAD , and took a few on my way home in the Liberties

I like this one, of natural racial integration , kids just playing together



some more on

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebaz/

Crispin

They seem a bit far away-i would prefer to see more of the kids expressions and I think it would have more impact. But just my opinion!

I think dublin face on your flickr is great btw

Tallon

Crispin wrote: »

They seem a bit far away-i would prefer to see more of the kids expressions and I think it would have more impact. But just my opinion!

I agree, not as close as Dublin face, but being able to see their expressions would have helped

Crispin wrote: »

I think dublin face on your flickr is great btw

I really like that photo,

thebaz

thanks guys -
its that minefield of photographing kids , want to give them space , unfortunatly there is a very small minority that will misinterpret images - so just have to be carefull.

By the way here is the face

AnCatDubh

I like the opening posted image. There's an old feel to it. Its the kind of image which local historians would be glad to pick up on in years to come. Positioning is appropriate but think the square crop leaves the mind wondering as to whats over to the right hand side of the image - why a square crop? The lines are strong and leading.

I'm surprised by a lack of children in the scene to be honest - it alters my assumptions but perhaps it's reflective of the maturity of the physical area?

Talk about a litter free zone(!) The scene reminds you of something from the 30's/40's in this regard - in all the hardship of that time there was a pride of the place. The ensuing 'wealth' of this fair nation has really left part of society irresponsible when it comes to respect for the place of others. I wish the cleanliness of that scene could be magically imposed on the rest of the country. Bravo Liberties!

Nice one Barry.

thebaz

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I like the opening posted image. There's an old feel to it. Its the kind of image which local historians would be glad to pick up on in years to come. Positioning is appropriate but think the square crop leaves the mind wondering as to whats over to the right hand side of the image - why a square crop? The lines are strong and leading.

thanks, your interpretation would be similar to what I see , the lines and geometry make it for me - as regards the square crop , I usually do a 6x4 , but something about this image that suited a square , maybe its to highlight the 2 kids - just a natural visual thing

thebaz

another side to Dublin

Dodgykeeper

The Original picture doesnt really do anything for me and looks to be a grab shot tbh, I like the face and there is not enough detail in the dark part of the image in the third one! (am in work so that could be my monitor)

Furthermore if I logged on here and saw a picture of my kids uploaded and on display I would have a real problem, did you speak to the parents?

Kintarō Hattori

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

The Original picture doesnt really do anything for me and looks to be a grab shot tbh, I like the face and there is not enough detail in the dark part of the image in the third one! (am in work so that could be my monitor)

Furthermore if I logged on here and saw a picture of my kids uploaded and on display I would have a real problem, did you speak to the parents?

Has this not been covered extensively already? The photos baz took are in a public place. You can barely even make out the kids! Oh Lordy, we are headed in all sorts of awful directions as a society.

Dodgykeeper

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Has this not been covered extensively already? The photos baz took are in a public place. You can barely even make out the kids! Oh Lordy, we are headed in all sorts of awful directions as a society.

It has been covered before, but if my kids came in and told me that some guy had just walked along the street where we live and took a picture of them i would not be entirely comfortable with that and I cannot believe any parent would, which is why I asked the question did Baz talk to the parents, maybe Kintaro who should have waited until he answered before responding.

Kintarō Hattori

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

...maybe Kintaro who should have waited until he answered before responding.

You aired your opinion, as did I. As mentioned I don't see why he should have asked permission for that picture. Up close and personal.... yes, but not for that.

smelltheglove

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

You aired your opinion, as did I. As mentioned I don't see why he should have asked permission for that picture. Up close and personal.... yes, but not for that.

I'm not posting here regularily anymore but feel I have to comment on this. I would not be happy at all if some strange man came onto my street and took a picture of my kids. I also only post pictures with the parents permission. I am not saying Baz is strange but any man taking pictures who is not known to me would be considered strange.

As regards to the picture, maybe it may interest historians you never know, it reminds me of a picture taking in the '80's, the crop contributes to that, I have one very similar which my parents took of myself and my sister and it was a small square print.

humberklog

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

I cannot believe any parent would,

I'm a parent and I wouldn't mind at all. Not in the least. Not even a 2nd notion would I give it.


I'm not to gone on the pic although I see where you're coming from Baz, but for me it hasn't been achieved. I'd have either asked the kids to move closer or positioned myself at the far pillar and I would have got down even lower. The tarmac covering the trench is very distracting in the position it is. So lower and closer would have brought the viewer into the subject and removed the tarmac as a distraction and kept St Pat's as a reference point.

markopantelic

i like the picture but it could have been better, nice find though i like the theme lol

thebaz

if someone sees something wrong with this photo morally I am at odds -
I have kids too, and if someone photographed them like this I would have no problem - people are saying I should have got closer , and I specified that I didn't, to give them anonymity - Can't win - no wonder I rarely post here anymore

humberklog

thebaz wrote: »

if someone sees something wrong with this photo morally I am at odds -
I have kids too, and if someone photographed them like this I would have no problem - people are saying I should have got closer , and I specified that I didn't, to give them anonymity - Can't win - no wonder I rarely post here anymore

I said about getting closer and as I said I understand where you were coming from but in keeping the distance (and the kids anonymity) the photo, for me, falls between two stools. Just my thoughts on the pic as a pic.
Maybe that's it...in trying to please all then the original intention gets lost.

thebaz

Nothing against you Humber - its just getting to the state where photographing children has now become impossible - kids are a part of life , just as much as old people - but because of a tiny tiny minority of sick people - Children become off limits for everyone .

smelltheglove

thebaz wrote: »

Nothing against you Humber - its just getting to the state where photographing children has now become impossible - kids are a part of life , just as much as old people - but because of a tiny tiny minority of sick people - Children become off limits for everyone .

It is true that people are more aware considering the amount of sickos etc out but I would guarantee you that if someone attempted to photograph my children without asking it would annoy me. I have 2 young girls and I would be extremely annoyed if a photographer came along taking their picture outside without asking me. Just yesterday I had to go outside into my garden as a teenage girl had come along talking to my kids, I know a girl and a teenager but you never know.

Baz we all know how you work and none of us would ever consider you a weirdo but I am coming from a parent point of view, if I didnt know you, I would be concerned.

Anouilh

I am a grandparent and, after listening to many young mothers express their concerns about contemporary society, I have decided that photographing children is a problematic area. It comes up so often here and really there is no way to resolve the situation without understanding that there has been a marked change in the way children are reared and in the fears that surround their everyday safety.

Asking for parental permission would probably be the correct procedure, given the current social climate. However, by the time everything had been arranged and set up, the spontaneous moment (so nicely captured in the OP's photo) would have been lost.

I have conversations with other grandparents and we all are very puzzled by the changes in social mores. The general trend seems to be that people are becoming more neurotic.

humberklog

thebaz wrote: »

Nothing against you Humber - its just getting to the state where photographing children has now become impossible - kids are a part of life , just as much as old people - but because of a tiny tiny minority of sick people - Children become off limits for everyone .

Kids are beautiful. Amazing to capture as their body language, eye readings and facial expressions are vastly different than a grown ups and this isn't a recent discovery. It's been recorded for prosperity by many artists over hundreds of years. Those features change by degrees over the years, possibly completely disappearing into the ether by the age 11.

But is it a mine field? I can't pretend not to be overly conscious occasionally too, sometimes weighing up the intrusion against the value of the shot and sometimes I end up just putting the camera away. In saying that though I haven't had a problem, ever. So that does get me thinking too. A minefield? Well I've overstepped the mark in many ways and on many occasions and have got into trouble. But never when it comes to taking photos of kids.
I've become to think that out there in the real world most people don't mind. As said, I'm a parent too and would have no qualms whatsoever. I think whenever my daughter's being snapped (and have done only recently at Africa Day); good stuff: a photographer, an artist seeing something and taking his canvas out and taking a picture of my daughter. He can see it too, the beauty, the simplicity, an artists eye. The world is good.
However where one does come across a negative responses is on chat rooms, on-line, at dinner parties, in the pub. But I've yet to encounter a problem whilst actually taking the photo.
A minefield? Maybe I've just been lucky and mix good luck with good judgment and your making your own luck...just enough to go out there and take the pictures you want, as you see life in your eye and express it. I'd rather feel artistic and free (earned from creating my own luck) than...not be.


Excellent B+W portrait BTW.

Dodgykeeper

Back to original question Baz, did you speak to the Parents?

AnCatDubh

thebaz wrote: »

if someone sees something wrong with this photo morally I am at odds -
I have kids too, and if someone photographed them like this I would have no problem - people are saying I should have got closer , and I specified that I didn't, to give them anonymity - Can't win - no wonder I rarely post here anymore

To be fair to the forum and its users I think when posting here you need to be acutely concious that people will interpret your art in their own way and may not agree with what you've captured or indeed your interpretation. I don't think it should be a source of anyone rarely posting.

I have to say for your original post, I can't see how anyone would have a major problem with it. You captured a scene. There were children in a scene. Our random thread has many more pictures of incidental children in random scenes. In truth if any of us check through our archive we will find such pictures.

To my mind you weren't explicitly taking pictures of children nor did you set out to do so. In terms of chances of you getting in trouble? Honestly, you've been in far more dangerous situations Barry and the scene posted would be the least of your experiential worries should anyone have objected to you. Far more of your older work I would think could have an odd parent or too jumping up and down and yet you still have done nothing wrong.

Technically, you have photographed a public place. You have zero issues from a "done right" or "done wrong" perspective. Its is a different matter entirely if some parent takes issue with what you are doing and challenges you. That is where using your feet to zoom out can be very necessary

If parents were that concerned and were sticking to the right or wrong arguments then they should have taken the children inside, and wrap them in cotton wool, and not allow them free movement until they are 18. Otherwise there is a risk for parents but as I was posting earlier in the week on one of the threads, risk avoidance is often purely for the optics of the situation and to fool yourself into thinking that we are all safe. If we didn't then we wouldn't live.

What about the guy who was actually photographing from behind you - quite a distance back actually with that 500mm zoom. That is probably the guy that the parents should have been worried about - not the guy who's trying to capture a scene with full disclosure.

( ps - that guy probably didn't exist on the day and is most likely a figment of my imagination - at least I hope so )

I personally do not believe you needed to ask anyone's permission. I personally do not believe that the children in the picture would be any safer if you had asked anyone's permission. I understand the other side of the argument and the reservations which parents and society will have. Bad people are in our society. Bad things have happened, are happening, and are likely to happen. Stopping a photograph being taken does not offer one bit of protection to our children. Worse still - this can lead someone to believe that for some reason their children are safer because a photograph has been prevented from being taken. The truth is that this is not the case.

It is amazing - at least three threads have ended up in this same discussion in the past few days.

thebaz

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

Back to original question Baz, did you speak to the Parents?

For what its worth I did speak to the nearest supervising adults -

wersal gummage

thebaz wrote: »

if someone sees something wrong with this photo morally I am at odds -
I have kids too, and if someone photographed them like this I would have no problem - people are saying I should have got closer , and I specified that I didn't, to give them anonymity - Can't win - no wonder I rarely post here anymore

i dont use this site too much - but most people put their pictures in the random thread ?

you start your own thread for just your own picture, and then you are grumpy because people comment on it ?

(for what its worth i dont see anything wrong with your photo - but i also would have a problem if my kid came in from playing outside to tell me a man was taking pictures of them - purely because i wouldn't know the style or type of picture that was taken and, unfortunatley, i probably would tend to think of the worst type of possibility).

Kintarō Hattori

This thread has just highlighted why my own flickr page does not and will never feature photos of random kids, no matter what the occasion or how good the intentions. It's a sad state of affairs.

bernard0368

What a mess our society is.
Remember the days when as Kids we would disappear for the day getting into alsorts of places, trouble with out a care in the world. Hell we used to go from Bray to Gledalough on our bikes when we were 10 as one of our friends was a red head the yanks used to pay for photographs of him.
We are probably better people for it. With the way society over protects kids now days scares me for the future. I dont see anything wrong with the OP picture I can understand some parents reaction to a strange person taking a photograph of their kids but in context.

Baz as for rarely posting anymore thats a shame and the forums loss.

smelltheglove

bernard0368 wrote: »

With the way society over protects kids now days scares me for the future.

I think that statement is incorrect to be honest. Every parent has just reason to protect their children, too many children are abused and not many of us here would want that for our own children.

Sometimes we dont even know close friendswell enough to leave alone with our children never mind a man standing on the corner with a camera!

PaulieC

smelltheglove wrote: »

I think that statement is incorrect to be honest. Every parent has just reason to protect their children, too many children are abused and not many of us here would want that for our own children.

Sometimes we dont even know close friendswell enough to leave alone with our children never mind a man standing on the corner with a camera!

going OT here, but what hope have our children got when they get older when they are as mollycoddled as they are these days? I would say that most kids these days are over-protected and are sorely lacking in any kind of life experience that we used to get when we were young (as mentioned above by bernard)

I have 3 girls by the way...

bernard0368

bernard0368 wrote: »

What a mess our society is.
Remember the days when as Kids we would disappear for the day getting into alsorts of places, trouble with out a care in the world. Hell we used to go from Bray to Gledalough on our bikes when we were 10 as one of our friends was a red head the yanks used to pay for photographs of him.
We are probably better people for it. With the way society over protects kids now days scares me for the future. I dont see anything wrong with the OP picture I can understand some parents reaction to a strange person taking a photograph of their kids but in context.

Baz as for rarely posting anymore thats a shame and the forums loss.

Unfortunately, there now appears to have been a reasonably high level of abuse (keep in mind that reasonablt high is still a small fraction of the population).

We were ignorant of it, but that does not mean it didn't happen.

Anouilh

bernard0368 wrote: »

What a mess our society is.
Remember the days when as Kids we would disappear for the day getting into alsorts of places, trouble with out a care in the world. Hell we used to go from Bray to Gledalough on our bikes when we were 10 as one of our friends was a red head the yanks used to pay for photographs of him.
We are probably better people for it. With the way society over protects kids now days scares me for the future. I dont see anything wrong with the OP picture I can understand some parents reaction to a strange person taking a photograph of their kids but in context.

Baz as for rarely posting anymore thats a shame and the forums loss.

I think we must have had the same childhood experience. Up to the early 1960's every teenage boy I knew owned at least a pellet gun hours were spent learning target practice.

It's such a pity we have no photographic record of this wild world.

As for not posting, I've managed to keep going here despite having been asked if I were mentally defective.

It's only the Internet...

smelltheglove

I had agreat childhood, but when I was young my dad had a best friend that he grew up with that worked with him and came on family holidays with us and his family. He had occassions where he would 'accidentally' walk into the toilet when i was in it. Shortly afterwards he was found to have been abusing his children and went on to abuse his daughters pals. I dont know what would have happened if he wasnt found out, would one of us have been next?

This goes to show how you NEVER know who is capable of what, I'd prefer to mollycoddle my children than to have them living with a memory of something like that!

Not posting is another thing i have tried to commit to in recent times as peoples comments end up being debated out too far. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but sometimes it gets to argumentative.

Maybe we should all agree to disagree, but as a parent I would prefer to shelter than to risk!

AnimalRights

smelltheglove wrote: »

Not posting is another thing i have tried to commit to

Lies!
You're posting so you can show off your new sig!!

smelltheglove

AnimalRights wrote: »

Lies!
You're posting so you can show off your new sig!!

lol, I like my new sig but I have that around 2 weeks now and you're just noticing:P

AnimalRights

I needed your previous reply to pounce on ya!

AnCatDubh

It's not a point to be trivialised but unfortunately we do appear to focus on the perpetrator of abuse on children which isn't what this is about. I think this is about someone taking photographs that has no particular interest in the children which have happened to end up in a scene - not posed - but by accident.

What i'm getting from this thread is to the position of;

(a) Posing/Isolated Candid = Would be courteous to obtain parental consent.
(b) Part of a scene, public place, etc.. = incidental and shouldn't be an issue.

Neither scenario actually demands that you do seek permission but in (a) it is probably a nice courtesy which photographers should practice i.e. if possible to ask and respect if someone says no.

Bad people exist. Stopping a photographer capturing a scene with children in it will not stop a bad person's intent on doing bad things.

smelltheglove

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Bad people exist. Stopping a photographer capturing a scene with children in it will not stop a bad person's intent on doing bad things.

But the point is this, how does the parent know that the photographer is a bad person or not? Not many of us would take kindly to our children being photographed without our knowledge or without perusal of the photographs.

Dodgykeeper

Lads i asked Baz if he asked the parents permission, he replied that he asked the supervising adult, end of discussion, we can go around the houses with this forever and a day! People have different views, i have no idea why this thread was hijacked!

DaireQuinlan

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

Lads i asked Baz if he asked the parents permission, he replied that he asked the supervising adult, end of discussion, we can go around the houses with this forever and a day! People have different views, i have no idea why this thread was hijacked!

:eek: It was hijacked by YOU originally !

AnCatDubh

smelltheglove wrote: »

But the point is this, how does the parent know that the photographer is a bad person or not? Not many of us would take kindly to our children being photographed without our knowledge or without perusal of the photographs.

You are quite correct - The parent doesn't know and mostly cannot know as indeed your cited example quoted previously demonstrates.

How does a parent know that a teacher, guard, football coach, or dance leader isn't one of these bad people. They don't but there is implied or explicit consent given by the parent which is my point of (a) and (b) above. Even then you do not really know (don't mean to scare monger but you really don't - believe me there are numerous examples which have been well documented).

Explicit or implied consent given in the case of (a) but how the heck are you supposed to get consent in the middle of St. Stephens Green where kids keep running into scenes.

So, if you don't / can't know then why do parents feel any more secure that their sons and daughters are safe - the reality is they aren't.

Don't get me wrong - if someone is stalking a child then bad person alarm should go off and that is appropriate. But if a dude turns up to capture a scene and your kids happen to be in it, well as a parent you need to decide if you are going to be there 24 hours a day to make sure they don't wander into a photographers frame - Many parents both today and in the past will abdicate such responsibility. Otherwise parents simply shouldn't let their sons or daughters out to a public space because a photographer has the same entitlement to partake in such public space as a parent or child (as impractical as this may be).

('You' in the context of the last paragraph refers to everyone).

AnCatDubh

AnCatDubh wrote: »

How does a parent know that a teacher, guard, football coach, or dance leader isn't one of these bad people. They don't but there is implied or explicit consent given by the parent which is my point of (a) and (b) above. Even then you do not really know (don't mean to scare monger but you really don't - believe me there are numerous examples which have been well documented).

Here in the UK, all of those people will have undergone a criminal record check.

I think its getting the same way in Ireland as well.

Dodgykeeper

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

:eek: It was hijacked by YOU originally !

I posted a comment on the three photographs posted and then as an aside asked had he asked for the parents permission, Baz answered that he did, whats the problem with that!

AnCatDubh

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

:eek: It was hijacked by YOU originally !

I had wondered yesterday had it gone off topic and needed a lasso but when I checked back on the opening post it isn't specific as to the purpose / is open ended and it does reference the kids / interracial aspect of the photograph so I deemed the ensuing discussion as remaining on topic (as on topic you can get when you don't have a topic )

DaireQuinlan

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

I posted a comment on the three photographs posted and then as an aside asked had he asked for the parents permission, Baz answered that he did, whats the problem with that!

you didn't merely ask that, you said that "Furthermore if I logged on here and saw a picture of my kids uploaded and on display I would have a real problem"

which in the normal run of things on this forum is like waving a red rag to a bull, particularly as this is the THIRD thread that has ended up like this in as many days.

But anyway, as anCatDubh will no doubt point out, this IS actually pushing this off-topic now.

AnCatDubh

Those going to the Street Performance thingy at the weekend should beware;

http://pix.ie/spl33n/1053830

They are flaunting it really :pac:

Dodgykeeper

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

you didn't merely ask that, you said that "Furthermore if I logged on here and saw a picture of my kids uploaded and on display I would have a real problem"

which in the normal run of things on this forum is like waving a red rag to a bull, particularly as this is the THIRD thread that has ended up like this in as many days.

But anyway, as anCatDubh will no doubt point out, this IS actually pushing this off-topic now.

Yes I would have a huge problem if some random person walked down my street taking pictures of kids without consulting anybody, Baz DID NOT do this so as far as his thread is concerned the matter is closed, all this is nonsense!

And as you can see from the post above anCatDubh has no problems pushing this thread off topic!

AnCatDubh

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

But anyway, as anCatDubh will no doubt point out, this IS actually pushing this off-topic now.

We're kinda getting there all right.

Everyone - Back to Baz's Dublin Photo and general discussion of photographing scenes (children or not present).

Thank you.

AnimalRights

One day Dodgy will run out of "!" and CM will run out of :pac:

trooney

Couldn't resist -

dakar

Pretty worried about the number plate on that van TRooney:D