Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
For the same reason they want shots of random adults... or dogs, or clouds, or pigs, or rivers..... because people like taking photographs. Why exclude children?
Pictures of children
- Thread starter Quicksnapper
- Start date
For the same reason they want shots of random adults... or dogs, or clouds, or pigs, or rivers..... because people like taking photographs. Why exclude children?
inkiboo
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,115
- Name
- Gerard
- Edit My Images
- No
I was taking some photos of my daughter in the park and was informed by another parent that I wasn't allowed to photograph children in public. I laughed, ignored her and carried on taking photos. She then said "You better not be photographing my children".
My response?
"Of course not; they are too ugly"
My response?
"Of course not; they are too ugly"
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd have said..."I've already got shots of yours, too late" 
Last edited:
I had one of those lady at the beach once at the donkey ride,to she tried to get others around involved,but they took know notice of her,so she stormed of with her children,then lit up a cigarette and blew the smoke into her children faces :arghh:
PMN
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That would have been a red rag to a bull for me, seeing idiot parents forcing their kids to endure their pollution is one of those things that immediately winds me up!
I think that you should visit the National Gallery or the Louvre in Paris, and then marvel at the great works of art, many of which include crowd scenes, candid shots of people. Artists such as Renoir and Van Gogh painted scenes which encapsulated the atmosphere, the surroundings, and often included large numbers of people not known to the artist.
Some of these great works of art even portrayed children.
PMN
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't quite understand this, you might as well ask why people would want to use their cameras to shoot anything at all. Maybe people want to take photos of other people because they can make incredibly interesting and characterful subjects, and sometimes not knowing them makes them even more interesting?
I don't understand this trend we seem to have of people having absolutely no interest in other people. People fascinate me, why wouldn't I want to try capture some of that fascination? As a photographer that seems the absolute natural thing for me to do.
Cagey75
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,146
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Random other people's children? when there's even a slight chance you'll be shouted at? Why cause grief for it? That's what I mean.
I take plenty of pictures of kids, including my own. What I never do is start snapping away at someone's young child out in public without asking them first! If they happen to be in my frame while I'm shooting a general scene, well then, nowt they can do about it. But I wouldn't make a point of singling them out without permission. It's just better to be courteous.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Perhaps I didn't express myself as well as I wanted to. What I meant was that just because I have no interest in photographing people I know, I don't see why that would make me think other people shouldn't do it.
This is in response to this:
My point being that just because Cagey75 doesn't see a need (which I share) there's no reason to see other people doing it as wrong.
Absolutely no reason why you shouldn't. People fascinate me too sometimes. I actually think it's interesting to just sit and watch people and see the traits of human nature they show when going about their business. Even more so when they have had a bit to drink! I have just never been interested in photographing them.
Steve.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Because if everyone avoided things that may be problematic, we'd still be living in caves. Plus... there'd be no war photography, street photography, good documentary photography. There would just be an endless procession of dreary bull****.
Last edited:
SpikeK6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,543
- Name
- Spike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have not logged in a for a few days now but you are right you cannot guarantee anything when searching, but surely its better to have some one sat there to search, read the links and then decide on a btter judgement that a child on whether to open the link through google or not?
It all depends on what your searching for, an adult searching for educational all, biological things is more likely to get what they are after (if search engine savey) than a child.
Its no different than taking your kid to WH Smiths or the like and getter her her favorite music mag or girly mag for teenagers then you decide to look at the latest photography mags and your child looks up and sees the latest edition of razzler or men only, and having to explain whats in them or why they cannot look at them.
I agree nothings perfect in this world and you cannot protect any child 100% but if you try to do all you can for them and bring them up with an understanding of how to search for things and explain things then I think there is nothing more you can do.
We all know children can access things very easily so it all depends on if you want to hide it from them or be up front and educate them and protect them.
I know there is no right or wrong answer but you can only bring your kids up the way you see fit, some people do this successfully and some just get no where near. I am not perfect but I do try