Shooting Kids in public places

[cgipson1]

Yes, I know.. that's who I was referring to. Tiller was pointing out that Kolia was just offering the perspective of a parent. I don't believe the intention was to insult or accuse you of anything.

EDIT: I'm assuming of course that Kolia is male .. if not, I apologize. Charlie made me say it....

Charlie made you say it? Is that one of the voices in your head? Or is Charlie your "higher power"? (I hate it when Generic Charlie's get blamed for stuff... gotta be Specific!)

 

[cgipson1]

Ah hell... just be inconspicuous ... shoot the photos from the curb with a giant lens from inside a white van with mostly tinted windows.

I prefer a Ghillie suit, with facepaint... and the camera mounted on a riflestock.... bugs people more...

 

[ShooterJ]

Yes, I know.. that's who I was referring to. Tiller was pointing out that Kolia was just offering the perspective of a parent. I don't believe the intention was to insult or accuse you of anything.

EDIT: I'm assuming of course that Kolia is male .. if not, I apologize. Charlie made me say it....

Charlie made you say it? Is that one of the voices in your head? Or is Charlie your "higher power"? (I hate it when Generic Charlie's get blamed for stuff... gotta be Specific!)

Sometimes I think you ARE a voice inside my head ... we think too much alike. It's a little creepy at times. Lol

 

[cgipson1]

Yes, I know.. that's who I was referring to. Tiller was pointing out that Kolia was just offering the perspective of a parent. I don't believe the intention was to insult or accuse you of anything.

EDIT: I'm assuming of course that Kolia is male .. if not, I apologize. Charlie made me say it....

Charlie made you say it? Is that one of the voices in your head? Or is Charlie your "higher power"? (I hate it when Generic Charlie's get blamed for stuff... gotta be Specific!)

Sometimes I think you ARE a voice inside my head ... we think too much alike. It's a little creepy at times. Lol

Nah.. that just means you is intelligent, good looking and are a godlike stud! (yea.. I know.. stating the obvious!) :lmao:

 

[ShooterJ]

Charlie made you say it? Is that one of the voices in your head? Or is Charlie your "higher power"? (I hate it when Generic Charlie's get blamed for stuff... gotta be Specific!)

Sometimes I think you ARE a voice inside my head ... we think too much alike. It's a little creepy at times. Lol

Nah.. that just means you is intelligent, good looking and are a godlike stud! (yea.. I know.. stating the obvious!) :lmao:

:lmao:

 

[ShooterJ]

Ah hell... just be inconspicuous ... shoot the photos from the curb with a giant lens from inside a white van with mostly tinted windows.

I prefer a Ghillie suit, with facepaint... and the camera mounted on a riflestock.... bugs people more...

I still have a ghillie. You're giving me ideas... :lmao:

 

[tecboy]

Sorry you took my comment the wrong way initially.

Like others said, I was giving you a parents perspective. And the usage of "You" and "Me" was just to facilitate the writing of the post.

I didn't mean to imply anything bad on the part of the person taking the picture.

I take my camera to the park too. But my kids are in there playing. And one day I will have a business card type thing to give to other parents.

Is there a fight I'm missing on a RAW vs JPEG topic ?

No harms done. You are welcome to give more advices if you have anymore in your mind.

 

[TJdarla]

I bring my 4 grand kids to the park all the time and take pictures of them playing on the swings and other things. some times the young kids that are there ask me to take there picture, I will snap off a quick on and go back to what I was doing with the grand kids. I did have a mother that was sitting next to my wife ask if she could have a copy emailed to her and my wife did so later that night.

 

[sashbar]

I do not know about other countries, but the UK Law says it is perfectly legal to photograph kids in public places if it is not intruding. What is intruding and what is not - it is for the parent to decide, not the photographer, but the photographer must see the line. I personally have not had any problems, first because when I am at a playground I am always with this guy, who takes 99% of my attention.

















And secondly it should be a very rare amazing moment when I would simply obliged to pull the trigger. I hever had one, sadly. And something tells me - if a parent is a bit angry - there is a perfect reason. And the reason usually is like: "There is nothing to photograph, you idiot. It is just the kid playing... and it is my kid, not yours." If there is some magic moment and I think "WoW" - I would not hesitate to shoot and offer a parent a photograph. And i am sure any parent would understand. And we both would be delighted. As I said sadly these moments avoid me. Probably others are just lucky. I find shooting other kids extremely boring, somehow they never look nearly as cute or funny as my own


Unless, of course it is a very special kid:


















I hope his mom will not mind..

 

[tecboy]

Thanks for overwhelming advices! Now, I have confidence to shoot kids.

 

[vintagesnaps]

People might come across as somewhat over sensitive at times but parents are going to protect their children; they don't know who you are or what you're doing or why you're around. There was just an incident in my area over the 4th of July of an apparent attempt to abduct a child in broad daylight at a busy amusement park so it seems understandable that parents might feel like they can't be too careful. And I know someone who put a photo of their child in their Halloween costume on social media and it went somewhat viral and apparently they found it fun at first and then said it got creepy.

At the convention mentioned in the OP parents had their children in costumes and they were at an event where likely pictures were being taken (and there was probably media coverage) so they may not have had a problem with someone taking their children's pictures. It could be a different situation if you're at a park etc. where kids are playing and other than the kids' families people most likely aren't there with cameras.

There's a difference between taking photos and what you do with them. What might have been meant by endangering yourself is that if you don't have a release or the parents' permission for subject under 18 you could be leaving yourself wide open if you post or use the photos anywhere. I think photographers need to protect themselves and get permission so they're covered.

If the photos are used for editorial purposes there may not be a need for a release but one might be requested; if you'd use a photo for retail or commercial use you'd most likely need one. Model release for a minor child | American Society of Media Photographers If you post photos online for display purposes you might want to read Terms & Conditions of the website (including social media sites) so you know where or how your photos might be used.

 

[Gavjenks]

Took this and a few other dozen like it without anybody in an entire cramped room full of parents batting an eyelash. Definitely helps to have the children in between your camera and some scene that is interesting as a normal photography subject:

 

[cgipson1]

Took this and a few other dozen like it without anybody in an entire cramped room full of parents batting an eyelash. Definitely helps to have the children in between your camera and some scene that is interesting as a normal photography subject:

View attachment 49718

Yea.. cuz it is a picture of fish (primary) with silhouetted kids (secondary) in the frame.... no facial detail. How would it be if it was a picture of kids (Primary - with good facial detail), with fish silhouette (secondary)? Might be a different story! lol!

 

[Gavjenks]

Took this and a few other dozen like it without anybody in an entire cramped room full of parents batting an eyelash. Definitely helps to have the children in between your camera and some scene that is interesting as a normal photography subject:

View attachment 49718

Yea.. cuz it is a picture of fish (primary) with silhouetted kids (secondary) in the frame.... no facial detail. How would it be if it was a picture of kids (Primary - with good facial detail), with fish silhouette (secondary)? Might be a different story! lol!

Uh, my point was that the parents didn't react at all. I wasn't showing them my pictures and having them approve! They didn't have any idea whatsoever whether I'm taking silhouettes or not.

It's not like 15 parents in the room all saw my camera, judged the ambient lighting, recognized which lens i was using and remembered its maximum aperture from heart as well as the maximum usable ISO range on my camera body, decided that I couldn't take a photo of their children's faces that was recognizable, and only then decided not to say anything as a result...

No, they saw a camera pointed at some fishies, and assumed I was taking pictures of fishies, end of story. The relevance to this thread being that you can get away with taking pictures of kids without freaking anybody out if you position yourself so that the kids as well as something normally photoworthy are both in the same direction.

And as a bonus, if you do that, you automatically have a pretty background for your images of kids anyway!

(By the way, even if somebody did understand my camera and lens, this was taken in a normally lit interior room with oodles of light. The photo is f/4 ISO 400, and I had a 50mm 1.8 on me at the time. Could have achieved 6-7 more stops of available light if I wanted to, handheld. That tank was damn bright.)

 

[cgipson1]

Took this and a few other dozen like it without anybody in an entire cramped room full of parents batting an eyelash. Definitely helps to have the children in between your camera and some scene that is interesting as a normal photography subject:

View attachment 49718

Yea.. cuz it is a picture of fish (primary) with silhouetted kids (secondary) in the frame.... no facial detail. How would it be if it was a picture of kids (Primary - with good facial detail), with fish silhouette (secondary)? Might be a different story! lol!

Uh, my point was that the parents didn't react at all. I wasn't showing them my pictures and having them approve! They didn't have any idea whatsoever whether I'm taking silhouettes or not.

It's not like 15 parents in the room all saw my camera, judged the ambient lighting, recognized which lens i was using and remembered its maximum aperture from heart as well as the maximum usable ISO range on my camera body, decided that I couldn't take a photo of their children's faces that was recognizable, and only then decided not to say anything as a result...

No, they saw a camera pointed at some fishies, and assumed I was taking pictures of fishies, end of story. The relevance to this thread being that you can get away with taking pictures of kids without freaking anybody out if you position yourself so that the kids as well as something normally photoworthy are both in the same direction.

And as a bonus, if you do that, you automatically have a pretty background for your images of kids anyway!

(By the way, even if somebody did understand my camera and lens, this was taken in a normally lit interior room with oodles of light. The photo is f/4 ISO 400, and I had a 50mm 1.8 on me at the time. Could have achieved 6-7 more stops of available light if I wanted to, handheld. That tank was damn bright.)

So sneaky pictures of kids are ok? As long as the parent's don't realize you are shooting them? hmmmm... if you say so! To paraphrase your words in another thread... "that's creepy!"