On 27/02/2010, Cotty <[email protected]> wrote: > That may well be in your experience. Note that the youtube video only > shows what appears to be a Leica (M8?) with a not particularly large > lens. Note also that the police can be heard explaining that it wasn't > the photography that was causing attention - rather the manner in which > it was being done - which is not explained further in the clip or > demonstrated in the silhouetted interview. So: the actual manner in > which the camera was being used was a cause for concern by the original > PCSO. This argument could be used for any activity, I admit. But if the > actions of someone attract attention, then there must be a reason why - > and in my opinion not just because someone is holding a camera. YMMV.
This is where I think it'd all gone wrong, you assume there must be a reason, I'm betting someone just has strange ideas. I was caught in a fairly volatile discussion the other day, I'm minding my business shooting the local Chinese new year street festival and I shot across the table of a vendor on the street. I was then harassed and shouted at by the guy and his wife (I assume) who told me it's illegal to shoot people without their permission or goods and then proceeded to call the police. I was with my little guy and had to keep moving but I was tempted to stay around. But then if the police were idiots I could have found myself in a similar position to the guy in the video. The shot, the guy and his wife (who I was then determined to make a photograph of) and the scene at large: http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/StreetVendor# We will probably all end up having to be registered as a certified non-professional photographer at this rate. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
