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 comm

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.