Kissing in a busy, public place, especially a place like Union Square in San Francisco on a busy, sunny afternoon - a place filled with many people with cameras - doesn't strike me as a very personal and private thing. These people were sitting right in the middle of the square, where traffic is the heaviest. Had they chosen to go off into a secluded corner, I'd say they were wanting and expecting some privacy.
Yes the woman "appears" to be annoyed, but you don't know for sure that she was, and, if she was annoyed, it's quite possible she was annoyed at something else, perhaps something that took place just prior to, or concurrent with, our arrival on the scene. You don't know - you're making an assumption, and we've always been taught not to assume ;-)) We'll just have to agree to disagree. FWIW though, I find some of your pix much more invasive than this one. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't have taken them, or that you did something wrong, just that the way they were taken and the subject matter makes them seem more intrusive than these snaps. In this instance the woman had the option to say no to having her photo taken. Using long lenses and photographing from greater distances doesn't afford the subject(s) an opportunity to say no ... that's, in part, where the greater invasion of privacy takes place, imo. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Yes, you can tell she knew her photo was being taken. > She appears to be annoyed. I don't think lens focal length > is a factor in terms of whether someone's space -- or privacy > -- is violated. Yes, kissing is a very personal and private thing. > It is much more personal and private than eating ice cream or > talking to friends, whether seen from behind or in front, long > lens or short lens.
