The ignorance of people outside of the industry

[Hooligan Dan]

<Nothing>

I'm not gonna start a flame war with you because that would be pointless, but in regards to your original comment asking how I can live with myself, my only reply is that you should simply stay away from the field of photojournalism. If you have such a huge issue with photographing people who don't want their pictures taken then taking photos of people who's house is burning down right in front of them, or of a teenager who's dead in their car, or any number of horrible events is not something you're gonna be able to handle.

 

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

I am not a photojournalist, but I have similar problems at my work, where, in the course of investigating problems in a building, I frequently have someone (building owner, resident, adverse party, whatever) trying to get me to stop. I have to do my job, so I just do it and don't let it get to me.

I don't know if I would use online comments as a true barometer of public opinion. It has been my experience that there are a lot of people (not all, but many) who frequent blogs and comment sections on websites and so on who just love to vent their spleens at everything that rubs them the wrong way.

Good luck!

 

[tirediron]

I'm not gonna start a flame war with you because that would be pointless, but in regards to your original comment asking how I can live with myself, my only reply is that you should simply stay away from the field of photojournalism. If you have such a huge issue with photographing people who don't want their pictures taken then taking photos of people who's house is burning down right in front of them, or of a teenager who's dead in their car, or any number of horrible events is not something you're gonna be able to handle.

Nor I with you, and I'll apologize for the content of my post pre-edit. I will say however that given the job that I have done for the last 20+ years, I suspect that I have seen and handled a great many things. I hope that you are never the victim of a photo-journalist, and have to experience the misery and suffering that can cause.

 

[Hooligan Dan]

Btw, thanks for the encouraging words, folks. The whole thing really got to me. Turns out some of the reporters saw the comments too and thought they were ridiculous.

 

[KD5NRH]

I'd have to side with the public figure argument; if she doesn't want her picture taken, there are plenty of jobs out there where no one outside the HR department's ID creator will ever care to take her picture.

I'll also agree with the "get a longer lens" comment; one of our emergency services leaders will never allow his picture to be taken if he knows about it only because he hates posed photos that much. I've gotten a couple of good shots with a 300mm lens on the Minolta, and a couple more with the Powershot S2 using the articulated screen to be discreet; he hasn't expressed any problems with those, but still hides from any camera he knows to be pointed at him.

 

[tasman]

I feel the same way too. I know some people that have just point and shoot cameras, and just take pictures of there kids and family things and the think they are photographers.

As for your situation, If it was my choice. I would have not posted her picture and made a comment on the web site that she declined to photographed.

 

[Bifurcator]

So, I'm a bit irritated right now. Last night for work I had to shoot at the local school board meeting because they were announcing the new superintendent for the district. Well, I was on a very tight schedule as many news photographers often are. So i need to get a quick shot of the lady and get out. Well, apparently the lady doesn't like having her photo taken(even though she's in a very public position) and the whole time I'm trying to shoot she keeps waving at me, blocking her face, and doing all the normal things people do to avoid having their picture take. So the shot is far from my good. Pretty novice at best.

So today I go on out paper's website and in the comments section for the story are nothing but people complaining about how terrible the shot is and how I shouldn't be a photographer mostly; one person fueling the flames talking about how much better she could do, etc.

Now, normally I wouldn't let this stuff bother me because most of the time when people say they could do better but offer no proof, they tend to be full of crap. But what I find funny is over the past few months I have published a number of slideshows on the site full of great photos and nobody has left a single comment. But I have one so-so photo and suddenly I have no place being a photographer? And what annoys me even more so is as an employee I can't leave comments defending myself.

I can't stand people who believe because they can take a pretty picture of a flower they think they can be a photojournalist. They have no idea what it's like having to be multiple places at one time, trying to get good shots in a limited slot under less than convenient conditions. I hate it even more when it's somebody who hasn't the slightest experience in photography.

[/rant]

And a VERY nice rant it was too! I enjoyed reading it! Stupid people are just that, stupid people! And needing to rant a bit after having to deal with a few of them shouldn't have to fall on critical ears. You go Dan! Give'm hell!

 

[Haraldo]

Like Mav said, it's not an option. I deal with people every day whop don't want their photos taken and I let them go on their marry with with no argument. But to small papers, the superintendent may as well be a world leader. She is in a public position and has to realize she will have her photo taken whether she likes it or not. She can either just let us do our job or she can be a pain and end up with unflattering photos. ...

Exactly. Suggestion: when you have the chance, have a friendly word with her explaining her two choices as a public figure: (A) she has embarassing, unflattering pictures of her published, or (B) she works with you to make sure the pictures show her in the best possible way. I was in the same position many years ago, and I found my strategy worked well. And the word may spread.

HJ

 

[droyz2000]

I am from a small town in Ohio, and not that I have been a PJ but I do know what you mean about public figures. Every little thing that happens in small towns is important. Superintendents are public figures for small towns. They are the person that the area looks to for school problems. In fact when superintendents are replaced in cities they can make the nightly news. On freakin picture is not that big of a deal. It is not like this lady is being hounded day in and day out for her picture. It was at a meeting no less, why wouldn't there be pictures? I feel for you Dan.

 

[Senor Hound]

I would respectfully submit that it most certainly is an option. "Sorry Mr. Editor, she declined to be photographed". We're talking about a minor personality in local government, not a world leader. I'm well aware of what the law says regarding the right of an individual to privacy, but common courtesy dictates that does not always have to be taken to a literal extreme.

The problem is if your boss tells you they need a photo, you're not really at liberty to offer your opinion on the issue. This is a big bummer in journalism.

I know a lady who used to be in journalism. She quit the day she had to go interview a lady who's husband committed suicide that same day to see "how she felt." It was the job, and it would definitely be courteous not to say anything, but that's not what people want to read.

As far as the OP, I'm not trying to invalidate your feelings, but at least take some comfort in knowing this is not something that's exclusive to the journalism/photography industry. Everyone's a critic, yet those same people would feel the same way you do if you went to their job and told them you could mow a lawn better than them

 

[verobooth]

They just wish they had your job! I majored in photojournalism and worked a little... I dont envy you man! It's a a very taxing job!

 

[mrodgers]

What is it with photographers and their issues with the fact that someone may not want their photo taken.

The photography crowd always barks up about rights and stuff, and how if you are in public, one has no rights, blah blah blah.

Now we have a thread complaining about someone waving at the camera and creating the situation of the photographer not being able to get the shot they wanted.

Last time I checked, there was nothing in the lawbooks or the constitution that stated if someone wanted to take a photo of you, you had to stop, pose, and allow it.

Who cares what your boss expects of you, or what you want as a photo, that person obviously did not want her photo taken, thus attempted to avoid it. There is no issue with the subject, the issue is with the photographer. Your boss wants the photo and you can't get it? That's a problem between you and your boss, not a problem with the subject in question.

 

[Hooligan Dan]

What is it with photographers and their issues with the fact that someone may not want their photo taken.

The photography crowd always barks up about rights and stuff, and how if you are in public, one has no rights, blah blah blah.

Now we have a thread complaining about someone waving at the camera and creating the situation of the photographer not being able to get the shot they wanted.

Last time I checked, there was nothing in the lawbooks or the constitution that stated if someone wanted to take a photo of you, you had to stop, pose, and allow it.

Who cares what your boss expects of you, or what you want as a photo, that person obviously did not want her photo taken, thus attempted to avoid it. There is no issue with the subject, the issue is with the photographer. Your boss wants the photo and you can't get it? That's a problem between you and your boss, not a problem with the subject in question.

So, you didn't read the complaint at all, did you? The issue isn't that the lady didn't want her photo taken. It's that because of one bad photo a group of people suddenly thought I was a terrible photographer and shouldn't be working for a newspaper.

Her, or anyone for that matter, not wanting a photo taken is just an inconvenience that led to the issue my rant was about.

But just for the record, when you are a photojournalist, a public figure not wanting a photo taken can be a very big issue. Everyday folk not wanting their photos taken is not a problem.

 

[Senor Hound]

So, you didn't read the complaint at all, did you? The issue isn't that the lady didn't want her photo taken. It's that because of one bad photo a group of people suddenly thought I was a terrible photographer and shouldn't be working for a newspaper.

Her, or anyone for that matter, not wanting a photo taken is just an inconvenience that led to the issue my rant was about.

But just for the record, when you are a photojournalist, a public figure not wanting a photo taken can be a very big issue. Everyday folk not wanting their photos taken is not a problem.

IMO you shouldn't even defend yourself. You don't have to. You came in here to complain and that's perfectly fine. Nothing you said or did was wrong, and that should be the end of it.

For everyone who thinks taking a photo of someone who doesn't want it taken is bad, this is a completely different topic. But, for the record, I think anyone who puts him/herself in a job where they are a representative of the people, has waived their right to refuse the obligatory photo. And to relate to this thread, quit getting mad at the photographer taking the photo, and instead get mad at the editor requiring it. Or better yet, get mad at yourself for wanting certain photos in your journalism articles that aren't always easy to find.

 

[Mike_E]

It seems that every politician has their people to do their griping for them.

The question that comes to my mind is why isn't the website moderated? Surely the webmaster is savvy enough to not let a group skew a balanced media outlet.