Why Do Tourists...

Kintarō Hattori

... photograph the police? I've never understood the fascination of striking a pose with the local police and taking a photo. Strolling by the National Gallery some tourists came out and asked a young guard if they could pose with him. Fair play he obliged. Later by the GPO the same thing again.

I've been to a few countries and have never wanted to have my photo taken with the local police. So why... what's the big attraction?

Is there anything that people take photos of that you just don't get? And before you reply- we'll rule swans out of this one.

Masada

I wouldn't want my photo taking with the cops, but i have taken pics of the cops from countries all around the world, I dunno why really, maybe its the uniform and the "out of the ordinary"ness of it.

Well I would like to get photos of them, but I'm a fan of our own 'boys in blue' anyway so it'd be nice to get some more images.

I think a lot of people do it because it's something that's almost a landmark in itself. You wouldn't see a Garda car or uniform in New York, London or Japan. Nor will you see an NYPD car in Dublin, Toronto or Rome.

In saying that, I'd imagine our boys get this a fair bit more than a lot others because there's no "police" over here, and we've Garda instead. Very Irish.

sensibleken

maybe it of the funny defenceless yellow police with no guns .

i see allot of people taking pictures of bins. but then i have allot of pictures of mundane things (such as my ex....zing!) that people must have been thinking 'wow what is that lunatic doing'

Ghost Train

I think its like a landmark, it identifies where you are

sineadw

Paintings. WHY do people take photos of paintings???? I was in Orsay last year and you wouldn't believe all the eejits taking shots of them. I watched one guy for a minute and he shot a whole series of Van Goghs without actually looking at them. Seriously people - buy a postcard. The shots must be dreadful..

jpb1974

The shots must be dreadful..

So what if they are?

Can photography not be about personal preference and enjoyment if someone chooses it to be?

I'm not keen on the idea of scoffing at the choices of others. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.

sineadw

I'm not scoffing. I'm making the point that people take photos of a work of art, and there's no way the light is sufficient to capture any of its beauty. And most of the time they don't even look at it. It's like collecting or something.

If that's what you want to do then fair enough. There is also the small point though that flash photography isn't actually allowed in Orsay. And no photography is allowed at all in the Louvre. I was gobsmacked at the sight of people using flash to photograph egyptian papyrus scrolls there. Or mauling the sarcophagus box of Ramesses III.. There's a room at the top of Orsay with watercolours so delicate they have to be viewed in subdued light, and people are in there flashing away.

jpb1974

I'm not scoffing. I'm making the point that people take photos of a work of art, and there's no way the light is sufficient to capture any of its beauty. And most of the time they don't even look at it. It's like collecting or something.

But so what? If the person taking the photos is content then there's now't worth worrying about.

There is also the small point though that flash photography isn't actually allowed in Orsay

Well that's another matter. I was addressing your original point "WHY do people take photos of paintings????" and not "WHY do people take photos of paintings using flash when it is not allowed????"

sineadw

@jpb - the question asked in the thread was "Is there anything that people take photos of that you just don't get?". I'm answering that. I don't get why people would want to take a photo of a painting, when they can get a *much* better representation of it elsewhere. These are (I assume) purely record shots. They're not taking an image of the painting in its environment. Or the gallery (that I get - some of the rooms are spectacular).

jpb1974

the question asked in the thread was "Is there anything that people take photos of that you just don't get?". I'm answering that.

Fair point. Apologies.

My only beef would be the assumption that the 'photos must be dreadful'... it's a fairly sweeping judgement... you'd have to assume that you've seen at least 51% of them.

buy a postcard.

Aye... you can't beat a good postcard. Maybe even have it framed?

Going back to the original question "Is there anything that people take photos of that you just don't get?"

My answer is no... I get the fact that we're all individuals and we all have different interests, tastes and personal preferences.

NothingMan

I don't get why most tourists feel they need to be in every picture. Obviously sometimes it's nice to have a pic of yourself beside a landmark but when I was in a national park in Croatia with amazing landscapes and green areas that made excellent photos, most people were getting their mugs in the shots too. Why would you need 200 pictures of yourself beside various waterfalls and lakes when the waterfall or lake is the beautiful subject you want to capture?

Kintarō Hattori

jpb1974 wrote: »

...Going back to the original question "Is there anything that people take photos of that you just don't get?"

My answer is no... I get the fact that we're all individuals and we all have different interests, tastes and personal preferences.

We don't need to rationalize everything. It's fact that we will be puzzled why folks want to do things we wouldn't do or that we find odd. I accept they have the right to, I accept that we are all different. Part of our nature is to interpret things differently to other people. While I can understand why they have the right to see things differently to me, it can still seem strange/funny or odd.

This is just a light hearted thread, please bare that in mind.

jpb1974

I don't have much of a problem with the original question... although I guess for some it'll be an opportunity for a minor rant.

It does bother me though when people have to throw in the "the shots must be terrible" bit at the end. I mean there's not getting it bit which is fine... but lets not just assume that the photos are terrible.

magicbastarder

graffiti. i don't understand why people take a straight shot of other people's artwork and then present it as a good photo in its own right.

undergroundeye

A friend of mine was lying on a beach in Australia, suddenly an Asian guy stood infront of him and took more than one photo of him wearing only his bathers.
There is nothing weird or out of the ordinary about him, just a normal bloke!

sineadw

jpb1974 wrote: »

I don't have much of a problem with the original question... although I guess for some it'll be an opportunity for a minor rant.

It does bother me though when people have to throw in the "the shots must be terrible" bit at the end. I mean there's not getting it bit which is fine... but lets not just assume that the photos are terrible.

Without a tripod there's no way they're getting a decent copy of the image. Not a chance. Have you ever tried?

I honestly don't see why you have such a problem with my statement.

jpb1974

Which one is it -

"WHY do people take photos of paintings????"

"WHY do people take photos of paintings with flash when flash is not allowed????"

"WHY do people take photos of paintings without a tripod????"

Have you ever tried?

Have you?

Kintarō Hattori

I don't want to sound rude but can you two stop it? We get your opposing viewpoints.

sineadw

NP Kintaro..

nonsequitir

I've frequently taken shots of military or police personnel when in other parts of the world because there's certainly a novelty value in the differences in uniforms, weaponed status and general demeanor that I think reflects a culture. That's just me.

I've also taken a (non-flash) photograph of a painting in the Louvre (the one opposite the Mona Lisa), but for novelty value as it had lots of people in it and was surrounded by a lot of people and it looked like they were an extension of the painting. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nonsequitir/3387827914/

Is it a crap photo? Yea, of course it is, it's a "Tourist shot" and crap by default. Most tourist photos, imo, are crap but the point of them isn't generally to produce technical masterpiecery, it's to remember a place, an event, a feeling - and I'm fine with that. So shoot away, because taking photographs often and everywhere is what makes it fun!

SouthDublinMan

NothingMan wrote: »

I don't get why most tourists feel they need to be in every picture. Obviously sometimes it's nice to have a pic of yourself beside a landmark but when I was in a national park in Croatia with amazing landscapes and green areas that made excellent photos, most people were getting their mugs in the shots too. Why would you need 200 pictures of yourself beside various waterfalls and lakes when the waterfall or lake is the beautiful subject you want to capture?

Surely people can take a picture of whatever they want! If they wanna put themselves beside the Tak Mahal or pretend to have the Eiffel Tower on their head what concern is it of yours, I only yesterday joined this forum and from what I have read a lot of you take yourselves and your photography too seriously!

humberklog

SouthDublinMan wrote: »

Surely people can take a picture of whatever they want! If they wanna put themselves beside the Tak Mahal or pretend to have the Eiffel Tower on their head what concern is it of yours, I only yesterday joined this forum and from what I have read a lot of you take yourselves and your photography too seriously!

You've missed the point, it's not a serious thread. You've taken it seriously.


I always get pics of me with police when away somewhere peculiar....and I don't know for the life of my why.

And advertising on vans in foriegn countries!!? But I do, I do, ido.

nonsequitir

SouthDublinMan wrote: »

Surely people can take a picture of whatever they want! If they wanna put themselves beside the Tak Mahal or pretend to have the Eiffel Tower on their head what concern is it of yours, I only yesterday joined this forum and from what I have read a lot of you take yourselves and your photography too seriously!

But this is a serious forum, for serious photographers, with serious intent and serious faces. Some of the people on this forum even have tripods and prime lenses!

jpb1974

Some of the people on this forum even have tripods and prime lenses!

And if you do you better act professional.

NothingMan

SouthDublinMan wrote: »

Surely people can take a picture of whatever they want! If they wanna put themselves beside the Tak Mahal or pretend to have the Eiffel Tower on their head what concern is it of yours, I only yesterday joined this forum and from what I have read a lot of you take yourselves and your photography too seriously!

This has already been mentioned and I don't wish to further sidetrack a possibly interesting thread, but I did not say I have a problem with the way people take photographs or that they do anything wrong. Just that it's not something I do or particularly understand. I like to try and capture the mood of a time as I see it and not with me looking at the camera doing blue steel. Even when I take my camera to a social occasion I like to get more candid pics of people than poses. That's me, if others want to pose in every shot they take then excellent, pose away.

As for a picture where the Eifel tower looks like it's on your head, sounds fun. I'd like to try it.

jpb1974

Even when I take my camera to a social occasion I like to get more candid pics of people than poses. That's me, if others want to pose in every shot they take then excellent, pose away.

It's strange to say that you don't get why people want to pose in all their photos... and then you say you prefer to stay behind the camera. You've sort of answered what it is that you don't get i.e. personal preference - that some people simply like posing in their photos and others don't like in your own case.

There's nothing not to get really other than the fact that people are different

magicbastarder

i think the 'that's just your opinion' response to a thread calling for people to express their opinions is a bit redundant; people like expressing their opinions and disagreeing with others, and that's all this thread is. plus, you tend to learn more and be challenged more by people whose opinions differ than you are by people you see eye to eye with.

in the end, it's all just friendly chatter.

nonsequitir

magicbastarder wrote: »

in the end, it's all just friendly chatter.

But seriously friendly chatter for serious people, serious about photography and not unserious touristy snapshooting of culturally significant edifices on people's heads! That's very unserious indeed!

sensibleken

well not so much the constant snapping by tourists but why do parents, especially new parents insist on showing you eleventy-two pictures of their baby pooing its nappy every day to try and convince you that their kid is cute

we only need one picture of it and only if its lost (child, not the poo)

melekalikimaka

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I don't want to sound rude but can you two stop it? We get your opposing viewpoints.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

johnmcdnl

I can understand wanting a photo with a constable in London or maybe even a nypd officer because there always on tv and are "cool" i suppose or just sorta part of the city..

but the Gardaí is beyond me.. suppose it's just a thing to do after being to somewhere like London.. you get in the habit of just getting pics taken with the local guards

Mjollnir

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

... photograph the police? I've never understood the fascination of striking a pose with the local police and taking a photo. Strolling by the National Gallery some tourists came out and asked a young guard if they could pose with him. Fair play he obliged. Later by the GPO the same thing again.

I've been to a few countries and have never wanted to have my photo taken with the local police. So why... what's the big attraction?

Is there anything that people take photos of that you just don't get? And before you reply- we'll rule swans out of this one.

I've been a cop since 2001, in Salinas and now in Los Angeles, and have never once had anyone ask that of me or seen someone ask it of another officer.

thedarkroom

When people go on holidays the intention isn't just to take a lot of pretty pictures and landscapes, etc. It's also about capturing 'memories' in a visual form, it's like a notebook or diary, it's what people do when they're away.
Anytime I go away either on my own or with the family, I don't set out to try and produce a masterpiece with every snap of the shutter. I take crap too but when I look at them later it triggers memories of the occasion which I, my family and other people can often relate to. When you're away you will often want photos of your companions/friends in various locations and/or with various people to set the occasion in context. We all have different notions of what makes a good holiday album, it's a personal decision which is particular to each of us as an individual.
The fact that someone takes a photo of a painting is not necessarily about having a high quality impression of the original, but rather it can also be about placing the picture in a sequence of events/photographs, which gives it relevance to the set and location. Having said that, I have taken photos in galleries without using flash and, while they don't match the excellence of the original, I have been very happy with them.
Lighten up folks, photography is many things to many people and as long as people get enjoyment out of them then that's what counts, that's the bottom line.
Compare it to music, I don't have any Daniel O'Donnell CD and never will but the man can certainly shift his albums and fill the venues. Each to his own and isn't it good that people get value out of it. Party on!!!!

duffarama

magicbastarder wrote: »

graffiti. i don't understand why people take a straight shot of other people's artwork and then present it as a good photo in its own right.

I take photos of graffiti, I don't present it as my own work. Graffiti can be interesting and make for a good photo, also, by it's nature, it's generally not around for long.

I like to document the place I live in, that includes the graffiti on the streets.

nonsequitir

Graffiti is an important part of cultural identity and so photographing it constitutes a form of social documentary. You can also take a styelized photo of such work and present it in an entirely new context.

The argument for shooting graffiti is akin to questioning why we'd shoot anything? Why not just look at it first hand and dispense with those nasty recorders of light altogether!

Shoot everything, often!

mehfesto

If you regulate yourself into what you can and can't shoot, you're really limiting the variety of pictures you'll end up with.

I totally agree with the above post : Shoot everything often!
Why not?

spinandscribble

nonsequitir wrote: »

Graffiti is an important part of cultural identity and so photographing it constitutes a form of social documentary. You can also take a styelized photo of such work and present it in an entirely new context.

The argument for shooting graffiti is akin to questioning why we'd shoot anything? Why not just look at it first hand and dispense with those nasty recorders of light altogether!

Shoot everything, often!

I think the idea is when its simple a full frame straight on shot of a wall and someone acts like it's their best work when really all it was was a case of correct focus and standing still. i understand the idea behind talking photos of it, to record something or save for seeing later and sometimes it can be interestingly done with combining people and angles but i think peoples problem with photos of graffiti comes from those who try to use someone else's work to increase the value of their own.

also, agree, never understood people who go to galleries and take pictures of work.

nonsequitir

spinandscribble wrote: »

I think the idea is when its simple a full frame straight on shot of a wall and someone acts like it's their best work when really all it was was a case of correct focus and standing still. i understand the idea behind talking photos of it, to record something or save for seeing later and sometimes it can be interestingly done with combining people and angles but i think peoples problem with photos of graffiti comes from those who try to use someone else's work to increase the value of their own.

also, agree, never understood people who go to galleries and take pictures of work.

Ah, okay, perhaps I misunderstood. My response was based on the act of shooting graffiti and not in any attachment of ego in its presentation. Two quite different things. In that context, I would agree. However, consider a panel of 10 shots of graffiti from around europe, presented together as a series with a message - perhaps that would actually work very well indeed? Perhaps that alone could in fact be presented as the artists (photographer in this case) best work?

humberklog

I like getting snaps of advertisings with funny names. Things like "buy your sweet in Arthur ****'s sweet emporium".

Joseph Bummers- Shoe maker.

Fordiners have funny names. I like photoing funny names.

mehfesto

humberklog wrote: »

I like getting snaps of advertisings with funny names. Things like "buy your sweet in Arthur ****'s sweet emporium".

Joseph Bummers- Shoe maker.

Fordiners have funny names. I like photoing funny names.

Lino Richie when it was in Finglas would have been a great snap too!

nonsequitir

humberklog wrote: »

I like getting snaps of advertisings with funny names. Things like "buy your sweet in Arthur ****'s sweet emporium".

Joseph Bummers- Shoe maker.

Fordiners have funny names. I like photoing funny names.

Once you're happy, then we're all safe!

spinandscribble

nonsequitir wrote: »

Ah, okay, perhaps I misunderstood. My response was based on the act of shooting graffiti and not in any attachment of ego in its presentation. Two quite different things. In that context, I would agree. However, consider a panel of 10 shots of graffiti from around europe, presented together as a series with a message - perhaps that would actually work very well indeed? Perhaps that alone could in fact be presented as the artists (photographer in this case) best work?

What if I took ten photographs of major artists work with a common message/theme and hung them up. Would that be my best work? Or just a collection of others good work with a common link?

I would classify that as maybe art appreciation.

sineadw

Chinese emporium has some brilliant ones Humber

nonsequitir

spinandscribble wrote: »

What if I took ten photographs of major artists work with a common message/theme and hung them up. Would that be my best work? Or just a collection of others good work with a common link?

I would classify that as maybe art appreciation.

That depends, would they be nude?

I guess the point here is it depends and that there is no right or wrong, there just "is".

nonsequitir

spinandscribble wrote: »

What if I took ten photographs of major artists work with a common message/theme and hung them up. Would that be my best work? Or just a collection of others good work with a common link?

I would classify that as maybe art appreciation.

Also, would you be describing them as major artists by your own aesthetic appreciation, media "ratings" or some other subjective criteria? LOL

spinandscribble

nonsequitir wrote: »

Also, would you be describing them as major artists by your own aesthetic appreciation, media "ratings" or some other subjective criteria? LOL

My point was just graffiti artists are GENERALLY unknown due to the regularly illegal nature of some work. I've seen people take some cheeky liberties taking advantage of others work, trying to make money or praise from head on shots of others work.
By major I just meant recognisable to the viewer, I just wondered if you could see my point that if the original artists whose work would be being used was known to those viewing the collection of photographs how it is the same as someone taking pics of someone else's work.

just that really, my opinion is nothings 'wrong' but can be more or less interesting. Basically when i see a photo of good graffiti i might say "interesting graffiti" but rarely "interesting photo"

nonsequitir

Agreed - in the end, it's really about opinion and personal preference.

magicbastarder

spinandscribble wrote: »

i think peoples problem with photos of graffiti comes from those who try to use someone else's work to increase the value of their own.

yep, i've seen people selling straightforward shots of impressive graffiti, which is probably where my dislike stems from. it's no different to taking a photo of the mona lisa and selling that as your own.