Amish boy caught me by surprise C&C

[LLD]

This is my 2nd day as a member.. I thought maybe this site isn't for me... thank you for your words rexbobcat. I thought maybe he's going to send me a big "A" for my chest because I'm took this Amish photo... thank you for your words.

 

[weepete]

I believe we all ask for everyone's thoughts on this forum, technically.....not what you believe is rude or what you believe religiously...If you are so against the matter, why would you read the thread? If you were against or not interested in nude photography, would you click on a thread that's titled "Penis"?

I'm sure he won't see it ... so there you go! I'm from that area near Lancaster and so do I. I just don't think its as horrible as you guys apparently do. They live in a modern world ~ they come into our world~ Have you ever taken a photo of a homeless person or an old person who didn't know you were shooting a photo. I just don't see it like you do.

In a word no. And you asked for our thoughts, I gave you mine. At best you've been insensitive, I'd say its damn right rude considering you seem to be well aware of the issues no matter how you want to justify it to yourself. If you don't want different views don't ask for it.

Well for the record I don't belive in god, at all in any shape form or way. In answer to your question I try not to have a preconcepti

on of what any image might be. Despite the title I will have a gander and make up my mind on the image that I see. Personally I wouldnt have a problem with any image label. What annoys me about this photo is not that the subject is amish, but the idea that just because the op can take a pic he will. Not only that but he says he probably should've taken it from the back as he knows about the fact that should the pic be taken, and knowing about it the subject would most likley be uncomfortable with it!

it's simply about respect for other people regardless of anything else.

 

[CourtneyAK]

I don't believe they were asking for anyone's advice on if the picture was morally or ethically acceptable... I believe here on this forum, we ask for advice on the technical points in a photo. I believe in this whole thread, only one person voiced that.

I myself may be rude, but if I had a photo op that no one could stop, no matter how morally or ethically it may be, Id take the Op for a once in a lifetime photo. -But who is really to judge what is or isn't rude or unacceptable.

I believe we all ask for everyone's thoughts on this forum, technically.....not what you believe is rude or what you believe religiously...If you are so against the matter, why would you read the thread? If you were against or not interested in nude photography, would you click on a thread that's titled "Penis"?

In a word no. And you asked for our thoughts, I gave you mine. At best you've been insensitive, I'd say its damn right rude considering you seem to be well aware of the issues no matter how you want to justify it to yourself. If you don't want different views don't ask for it.

Well for the record I don't belive in god, at all in any shape form or way. In answer to your question I try not to have a preconcepti

on of what any image might be. Despite the title I will have a gander and make up my mind on the image that I see. Personally I wouldnt have a problem with any image label. What annoys me about this photo is not that the subject is amish, but the idea that just because the op can take a pic he will. Not only that but he says he probably should've taken it from the back as he knows about the fact that should the pic be taken, and knowing about it the subject would most likley be uncomfortable with it!

it's simply about respect for other people regardless of anything else.

 

[thetrue]

weepete - so you take photos of....what? Rocks?

If the OP stated that the Amish boy crossed his path as she clicked the shutter, would that have been acceptable to you - lord of all things photographic? If yes, then pretend that's what the OP said. Otherwise, add something useful or buzz off.

OP - that horse is majestic, I like the framing, making the horse the subject.

 

[weepete]

In a word no. And you asked for our thoughts, I gave you mine. At best you've been insensitive, I'd say its damn right rude considering you seem to be well aware of the issues no matter how you want to justify it to yourself. If you don't want different views don't ask for it.

Your high and mighty attitude does not necessarily make you a better person. FYI.

You also argue that war and conflict photographers are incredibly rude, but at the same time it's kind of inevitable. "My heavens! You are soooo rude. For shame!"

I can understand the respect of it all, but arguing about what is and isn't rude on an online forum is kind of pointless, because getting all offended by this photo/attitude is TOTALLY going to make the photo go away, right?

It doesn't help anyone. The "it's really rude, *******" argument can be applied to so many areas of photography such as PJ and street photography that it's kind of lost its meaning. I guess being a bad person is just part of being a photographer...

Just giving my opinion, of course.

Now can we please discuss the photo and stop talking about who has the better set of ethics. We already know who lives by the WWJD code, so let's move it along.

Well, lets get the first thing out of the way, I certainly don't mean to come across as high and mighty, I apolgise right now and for the record if I come across that way with my writeing, it's really not how I mean to come across.

there was no mention of war photographers until you brought it up now, and no it's not the same thing.

Question is should you take a shot just because you can and if yes how does that make you different to the papperattzi?

 

[CourtneyAK]

Paparazzi are still photographer's right? Who are you to judge what type of photographer they can be? And what does it really even matter?

In a word no. And you asked for our thoughts, I gave you mine. At best you've been insensitive, I'd say its damn right rude considering you seem to be well aware of the issues no matter how you want to justify it to yourself. If you don't want different views don't ask for it.

Your high and mighty attitude does not necessarily make you a better person. FYI.

You also argue that war and conflict photographers are incredibly rude, but at the same time it's kind of inevitable. "My heavens! You are soooo rude. For shame!"

I can understand the respect of it all, but arguing about what is and isn't rude on an online forum is kind of pointless, because getting all offended by this photo/attitude is TOTALLY going to make the photo go away, right?

It doesn't help anyone. The "it's really rude, *******" argument can be applied to so many areas of photography such as PJ and street photography that it's kind of lost its meaning. I guess being a bad person is just part of being a photographer...

Just giving my opinion, of course.

Now can we please discuss the photo and stop talking about who has the better set of ethics. We already know who lives by the WWJD code, so let's move it along.

Well, lets get the first thing out of the way, I certainly don't mean to come across as high and mighty, I apolgise right now and for the record if I come across that way with my writeing, it's really not how I mean to come across.

there was no mention of war photographers until you brought it up now, and no it's not the same thing.

Question is should you take a shot just because you can and if yes how does that make you different to the papperattzi?

 

[weepete]

weepete - so you take photos of....what? Rocks?

If the OP stated that the Amish boy crossed his path as she clicked the shutter, would that have been acceptable to you - lord of all things photographic? If yes, then pretend that's what the OP said. Otherwise, add something useful or buzz off.

yeah mate I do, Glasgow Rocks. And no, I know I'm just a beginner like most, a hobbiest at best . And hey, like it or not just because you can take a pic doesn't mean you should.

 

[TCampbell]

Soo.... three pages of posts later and you still don't have much "C&C" on the photo... only C&C on whether it was ok to take the photo.

MEANWHILE back to the photo.

The exposure is nice, the depth of field is nice, the focus is sharp on the front of the horse... but I think it lacks framing. It's not so much a photo of a horse and buggy or even horse and driver... it's more a photo of a horse and the framing is a bit awkward. Think about what you'd like as your subject and frame it. e.g. if it's the horse and buggy then you'd need to zoom out a bit to get more in the frame and include more of the context in the composition.

If you wanted this to be more of the horse and driver then I'd rotate the camera sideways.

 

[weepete]

Paparazzi are still photographer's right? Who are you to judge what type of photographer they can be? And what does it really even matter?

Your high and mighty attitude does not necessarily make you a better person. FYI.

You also argue that war and conflict photographers are incredibly rude, but at the same time it's kind of inevitable. "My heavens! You are soooo rude. For shame!"

I can understand the respect of it all, but arguing about what is and isn't rude on an online forum is kind of pointless, because getting all offended by this photo/attitude is TOTALLY going to make the photo go away, right?

It doesn't help anyone. The "it's really rude, *******" argument can be applied to so many areas of photography such as PJ and street photography that it's kind of lost its meaning. I guess being a bad person is just part of being a photographer...

Just giving my opinion, of course.

Now can we please discuss the photo and stop talking about who has the better set of ethics. We already know who lives by the WWJD code, so let's move it along.

Well, lets get the first thing out of the way, I certainly don't mean to come across as high and mighty, I apolgise right now and for the record if I come across that way with my writeing, it's really not how I mean to come across.

there was no mention of war photographers until you brought it up now, and no it's not the same thing.

Question is should you take a shot just because you can and if yes how does that make you different to the papperattzi?

Why, are you a pap?

 

[CourtneyAK]

Unless that horse is Mr. Ed...I don't think she's the paparazzi

In a word no. And you asked for our thoughts, I gave you mine. At best you've been insensitive, I'd say its damn right rude considering you seem to be well aware of the issues no matter how you want to justify it to yourself. If you don't want different views don't ask for it.

Your high and mighty attitude does not necessarily make you a better person. FYI.

You also argue that war and conflict photographers are incredibly rude, but at the same time it's kind of inevitable. "My heavens! You are soooo rude. For shame!"

I can understand the respect of it all, but arguing about what is and isn't rude on an online forum is kind of pointless, because getting all offended by this photo/attitude is TOTALLY going to make the photo go away, right?

It doesn't help anyone. The "it's really rude, *******" argument can be applied to so many areas of photography such as PJ and street photography that it's kind of lost its meaning. I guess being a bad person is just part of being a photographer...

Just giving my opinion, of course.

Now can we please discuss the photo and stop talking about who has the better set of ethics. We already know who lives by the WWJD code, so let's move it along.

Well, lets get the first thing out of the way, I certainly don't mean to come across as high and mighty, I apolgise right now and for the record if I come across that way with my writeing, it's really not how I mean to come across.

there was no mention of war photographers until you brought it up now, and no it's not the same thing.

Question is should you take a shot just because you can and if yes how does that make you different to the papperattzi?

 

[weepete]

Sorry Courtney, the question was are you?

 

[CourtneyAK]

Sorry Courtney, the question was are you?

Does it matter either way?

 

[LLD]

Soo.... three pages of posts later and you still don't have much "C&C" on the photo... only C&C on whether it was ok to take the photo.

MEANWHILE back to the photo.

The exposure is nice, the depth of field is nice, the focus is sharp on the front of the horse... but I think it lacks framing. It's not so much a photo of a horse and buggy or even horse and driver... it's more a photo of a horse and the framing is a bit awkward. Think about what you'd like as your subject and frame it. e.g. if it's the horse and buggy then you'd need to zoom out a bit to get more in the frame and include more of the context in the composition.

If you wanted this to be more of the horse and driver then I'd rotate the camera sideways.

I caught it quite by accident. I was actually taking photos from the car and this buggy came roaring down on an ice packed road towards us. I didn't really have time to react I just clicked. But you're right it would have been a FAR better photo had I been prepared. I appreciate your post and thoughts. I'm REALLY new to this and never dreamed this would cause so much discussion.

 

[CynthiaM]

I think the horse looks more surprised than what the photographer was. Love the expression on old dobbin's face, the ears up tight.

side note....There's an old photographer named Bill Coleman who really did a wonder job photographing the Amish - he and my dad are good friends, they were at PSU together and oh the stories dad tells....

 

[EIngerson]

I wish you had enough fore-warning to frame the horse and carriage better. That would be an awesome photo if nothing was cut off. Other than that, I'd say cool.