5 ms·

The author is the (female) photographer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikiko_Hara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikiko_Hara Why does a candid photo of a woman

The author is the (female) photographer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikiko_Hara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikiko_Hara Why does a candid photo of a woman or child have to be considered a creepshot in your mind?

rangibaby 8y ago
> Why does a candid photo of a woman or child have to be considered a creepshot in your mind? As a guy the Japanese police will not be happy if you take candids of women or kids
- fwn 8y ago
  > As a guy the Japanese police will not be happy if you take candids of women or kids That's true. There is a lot of fear, prejudice and prudery around gender and age in the arts. That doesn't mean we should stop thinking: It's crucial to assess for ourselves whether a picture appears to us as offensive as we are confronted with it. Otherwise the criticism is just meaningless, recycled fear.
  - rangibaby 8y ago
    > That doesn't mean we should stop thinking: It's crucial to assess for ourselves whether a picture appears to us as offensive as we are confronted with it. That's an interesting thought. Do you think photographers should have a moral responsibility? A famous example I can think of is the controversy surrounding "The vulture and the little girl" by Kevin Carter. In terms of street photography, is it OK to "creep" or invade someone's privacy, especially that of children? There is certainly a line between telling a story and trashy exploitation, the question is where is it?
    - fwn 8y ago
      Good question and I don't think I have a great answer. I personally believe that morality lies not in the document, but in the context it is created or displayed in. If, for example, the intention appears to me to be dishonest, exploitative or outright cruel, I'd want to criticize the person responsible for putting this document into this context. Whether this is done by creating the document or changing its context doesn't appear as relevant to me. Regarding the declarative line you mention, I think I'm pretty much a pragmatist: I do not need to know where exactly the border is between India and China to know that Delhi is in India. ...but I'm open to a more rule based approach as well. I just don't know one.
baud147258 8y ago
Did the author had the consent of the photographed persons? And the consent to publish the pictures?
novia 8y ago
Hi! I implied that the author was the photographer when I asked why she chose to creepshot mostly women and children. Additionally, the implication in my comment was that if she had done the same thing to a man, it would also be a creepshot. My definition of creepshot is a photo taken of someone without their knowledge. You, charitably, call them candid photos. From the Wikipedia article on candid photos: "Thus, the candid character of a photo is unrelated to the subject's knowledge about or consent to the fact that photos are being taken, and unrelated to the subject's permission for further usage and distribution. The crucial factor is the actual absence of posing. However, if the subject is absolutely unaware of being photographed and does not even expect it, then such photography is secret photography, which is a special case of candid photography." So while you are technically right to call them that, I think the fact that they are the specific subset of candid photography known as secret photography is relevant.

rangibaby 8y ago

> Why does a candid photo of a woman or child have to be considered a creepshot in your mind? As a guy the Japanese police will not be happy if you take candids of women or kids

fwn 8y ago
> As a guy the Japanese police will not be happy if you take candids of women or kids That's true. There is a lot of fear, prejudice and prudery around gender and age in the arts. That doesn't mean we should stop thinking: It's crucial to assess for ourselves whether a picture appears to us as offensive as we are confronted with it. Otherwise the criticism is just meaningless, recycled fear.
- rangibaby 8y ago
  > That doesn't mean we should stop thinking: It's crucial to assess for ourselves whether a picture appears to us as offensive as we are confronted with it. That's an interesting thought. Do you think photographers should have a moral responsibility? A famous example I can think of is the controversy surrounding "The vulture and the little girl" by Kevin Carter. In terms of street photography, is it OK to "creep" or invade someone's privacy, especially that of children? There is certainly a line between telling a story and trashy exploitation, the question is where is it?
  - fwn 8y ago
    Good question and I don't think I have a great answer. I personally believe that morality lies not in the document, but in the context it is created or displayed in. If, for example, the intention appears to me to be dishonest, exploitative or outright cruel, I'd want to criticize the person responsible for putting this document into this context. Whether this is done by creating the document or changing its context doesn't appear as relevant to me. Regarding the declarative line you mention, I think I'm pretty much a pragmatist: I do not need to know where exactly the border is between India and China to know that Delhi is in India. ...but I'm open to a more rule based approach as well. I just don't know one.

baud147258 8y ago

Did the author had the consent of the photographed persons? And the consent to publish the pictures?

novia 8y ago

Hi! I implied that the author was the photographer when I asked why she chose to creepshot mostly women and children. Additionally, the implication in my comment was that if she had done the same thing to a man, it would also be a creepshot. My definition of creepshot is a photo taken of someone without their knowledge. You, charitably, call them candid photos. From the Wikipedia article on candid photos: "Thus, the candid character of a photo is unrelated to the subject's knowledge about or consent to the fact that photos are being taken, and unrelated to the subject's permission for further usage and distribution. The crucial factor is the actual absence of posing. However, if the subject is absolutely unaware of being photographed and does not even expect it, then such photography is secret photography, which is a special case of candid photography." So while you are technically right to call them that, I think the fact that they are the specific subset of candid photography known as secret photography is relevant.