The trusty old 200-400 f4, I find that I am using that more and more for
s****t now that I have the D3 now that I don't to worry about light. It's
as
easily as sharp as the 400 2.8 and a lot more versatile.
In the boat it allowed me to shoot tight to get those expression shots and
then go out to 200 to get in the city skyline. In the background. I
wouldn't have been able to do that with a fixed 400 without a second body
to
lug around.
On 17/3/08 10:18 PM, in article 13tskttrtef0716@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Rita
Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Michael Brown wrote:
>
>> I agree that in some cases there are some perverts taking pics that
>> are not very flattering (crotch shots, cleavage shots etc), but if
>> you try and stop beach photography you are opening the door to stop
>> all lifestyle photography including street.
>>
>> Law in Australia states (and remember we are talking about Australia
>> here), if you are out in the public and the photographer is standing
>> on public / crown land, then you have no expectation of privacy.
>> They make exceptions when it comes to upskirt type of photography
>> which does not come under a photography law, but privacy and
>> harassment laws.
>>
>> Are we all to forget some of the wonderful beach life books that were
>> produced back in the 60's & 70's, if these laws were enforced we
>> would not have these great little gems of history.
>>
>> And Rita, here children have the same "expectation of privacy" in
>> public places as adults....none!! And that was enforced by a Judge
>> here in the past few years. I shoot a lot of kids s****ts events, and
>> I do not require written permission from parents, however I do have
>> permission from the s****ting body / club, and it is usually heavily
>> promoted and advertised (schools are an exception to this, permission
>> has to be sought, that is not law, it's school policy).
>>
>> However I am not stupid enough to go around snapping general kids
>> photos in public, as a parent I probably wouldn't like that either
>> (even though I know the law is on the shooters side), I don't
>> particularly wish to get into a fight with anyone in public, though
>> they would be the one's to potentially be charged with an offence, so
>> I usually ask permission or don't bother.
>>
>> By the letter of the law, whomever took the cameras and seized the
>> images / footage is in for some serious trouble.
>
> You bring up a lot of good points and I agree with you. The law(s) seem
to
> be very similar in the US. And as you are pointing out you are
exercising
> common sense and showing a high degree of professionalism when you are
> practicing your art and doing your job as a professional photographer.
I
> think most people respect the way you approach the situation where
asking
> permission, shooting at events where the participants know they are
going to
> be photographed, or at a bare minimum notifying people of your intent.
> That's the difference; you are being honest with people and showing them
> basic courtesy. You aren't putting people in an uncomfortable situation
or
> shooting in a way that can be interpreted as questionable.
>
> The sad part is your rights will be trampled on because the small
minority
> of people that intentionally break the rules or engage in unethical or
> illegal practices. It seems the squeaky wheel is the one that attracts
the
> most attention and will bring negativity to the trade. And if you
really
> look at it from both sides of the coin most photographers aren't being
> negatively affected because they aren't bringing unnecessary attention
to
> themselves.
>
> BTW> Great waterskiing shots. You got the best vantage point from the
back
> of the boat. What lens did you use?
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>
|
