What would you do if asked to show the photo you just took ?

[bobt]

I picked show and delete if asked, funny though, people snap away with mobile phones all the time and no-one seems to care but photography with a DSLR often seems to envoke a reaction.

Exactly. So often the objection arises not because of the photograph taken, but of the person taking it. Cameras are everywhere and so are photographers, but somehow a photograph taken by an old fart with a DSLR is more objectionable than one taken by a young mother using her iPhone. Discrimination works in many ways in our society.

[Mark L]

I choose the same option but what you mention is important.

I actually chose 'Walk away & ignore' because I'm big fat 'n' ugly and don't give a rats!

If the bloke could bash me up does that influences my vote here.

[Bally]

I had this situation in Mt Isa.

I was there for work for a couple of days.
Took camera etc to try and get some photos of sunset over desert
Called a cab and said head west young man.
Pointed off to the left and said lets go down there. A guy in uniform steps out and says what's up
I say, I want to take some pics of the sunset, he says no worries and lets us go
Drive a few ks. climb a hill het some pics and head back
Met by a range rover with flashing lights
Two guards ask what we are doing.
Tell them
they demand camera
Tell them no
They say it is private property, give them the card
I explain my belief is that they can tell me stop taking pics, I already have.
They can tell me to leave, I am already attempting to leave
and that is it.
I also explain that we are in fact there with permission and my friendly taxi guy nods
He radios base and they are firm on they want the card
I say two options
1. call the police and then you will never see what is on there
2. ask politely and I will scroll through every pic on the card that I have taken today
back and forth with base and they look and enthuse about pics and we leave with an extra $10 on the fair.

They were reasonable and I was reasonable. And it is always my first approach.
and as I see stated here already. Common sense inn where you point your camera and how you deal with people is important for how the amateur tog is treated
Let's not be associated with paps and mobile pervs

My thoughts

[Lance B]

Unfortunately, we live in times of "everyone is a victim" and as such many feel the need to play the victim card and therefore believe they should be offended if someone took a photo of them with "that expensive camera that must take good pictures". Yet, we have people happily snapping away with their mobile phones at anyone and everything and yet no one gets upset. Go figure.

I remember taking photos in Brisbane at night a few years ago with camera on a tripod and remote in hand. As I didn't want people in the photo, I purposely waited until there were no people walking past before tripping the shutter. After I had taken a few photos, a few people walked past and a woman of about 35 years old in the group asked, "I hope you didn't take my photo", to which I replied, "If you don't want your photo taken, don't go out in public". She didn't have an answer and walked off. What amuses me is why they seem to feel as though they would be considered so special that anyone would want to take their photo! She is a Neville nobody as far as I am concerned. I mean, people are being photographed all the time in public and in private areas by security cameras as well as by phones and more discrete methods. The funny thing is, if people want to take your photo they will, and do it in more nefarious methods than out in the open so as to open themselves up to being confronted.

I just don't take photos of people unless they are family or friends and if it was someone in public it would only be if I has asked them first. So, if someone asked me to see a photo I had taken, it would depend on the context. If there were people in the photo, I may oblige but it would depend on the demeanour of the person asking and why as I actually avoid taking photos of people like the plague as I generally don't want people in my photos anyway.

[bitsnpieces]

Will just tell them I'll photoshop them out

Not my fault they walked into my photo

[ameerat42]

...Not my fault they walked into my photo

OTOH, get mad at them for spoiling your shot

[Liney]

Sorry to bring this thread up again, but I was reading an article which may have some relevance. The article was a short comment by a law student, who was at a lecture given by a professor of law and the subject of agreeing to a search by a police officer was raised. Now this was based in the US but the gist of the response from the professor was that regardless of whether you think you have nothing to hide, when questioned the professor replied that they would always deny the search request and insist the police officer obtained and served a warrant in order to conduct a search.

The fact that the police officer has asked to search you or your belongings, vehicle or premises (and I could suggest that this includes the images you have stored on your camera) implies that they suspect you of being in possession of something illegal but they have not stipulated what they are looking for. By forcing them to get a warrant they have to make it clear what they are looking for, and where they are going to look.

It seems counter intuitive but perhaps this is the way society has gone. An associated article also talked about not speaking with police, no matter hot innocent it seemed, without a lawyer being present. Is this an example of the writer being of the opinion that the police will manipulate evidence or statements any way that suits them? I don't know.

[jim]

How do options 3 and 5 differ?

[bobt]

How do options 3 and 5 differ?

I guess one is standing your ground while the other is simply walking away to diffuse the situation. Walking away requires the other person to actively try to stop you, at which point he/she becomes the aggressor. It changes the balance somewhat. A subtle but important difference i think.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this an example of the writer being of the opinion that the police will manipulate evidence or statements any way that suits them? I don't know.

One likes to think the police would be objective and balanced, but by the same token they will not necessarily base their actions on the same laws that you are relying on.

A recent example was the people who videoed ethnic groups at St Kilda the other day. The photographers claimed their right to take photographs in a public place - a correct application of that law - but the police relied on laws pertaining to creating unrest, disturbing the peace etc etc. They are the one with the uniforms, and in practical terms that means they get to choose which particular law they'll rely upon in any given situation!

Being technically correct doesn't necessarily mean you win.

[jim]

No, 3 and 5 in the original order of questions: "I would refuse to show them" and "I would refuse no matter who they were"

[bobt]

No, 3 and 5 in the original order of questions: "I would refuse to show them" and "I would refuse no matter who they were"

Oh yeah .... probably the same. My bad.