Bucket list - stilettos

[Shyheels]

I had an assignment in Zanzibar many years ago. There is quite a mix of people there - Arab, African, Hindi etc. The Muslim community is very conservative in Zanzibar. They do not even go for the fancy styles of minarets on their mosques because they don't want the ostentation. They - the vast majority of them - strongly object to having their pictures taken. I had to tread carefully, and respectfully. Where I was shooting defined individual subjects I went with Bantu or Hindi (cleared in advance) Crowd and market scenes were trickier. I used long lenses, big crowds, and tried my best to make certain no one person stood out. I got the job done, with no unpleasant experiences and, I hope, no offence given

It may be different there now. They are quite used to tourists there these days. This was in the 90s, when Zanzibar was just opening up to visitors.

[FastFreddy2]

6 hours ago, Shyheels said:

They - the vast majority of them - strongly object to having their pictures taken.

I used long lenses, big crowds, and tried my best to make certain no one person stood out. I got the job done, with no unpleasant experiences and, I hope, no offence given

 

This is a worse "infringement" than anything I've ever done. 

Not only do I take photographs in (public) places in a culture were the expectation is everyone will be photographed and video'd, I ensure that every face and costume is obscured to avoid recognition. I don't even expect the photo's to be published, as few are.

Seems to me, you are saying you have been paid to photograph people in a culture that doesn't want to be photographed, by using long lenses to furtively achieve the goal of getting those images, which you knew the subjects would not want (for cultural reasons). And doing this knowing those images would likely be published and seen throughout the world?

While I had assured myself I would not respond to this thread again, I am stunned by what seems to be the hypocrisy here. At least where I take my candids, (a la Bresson) people likely have FB pages, indulge in 'selfies' and have a reasonable expectation they appear on video every time they leave their home, every time they walk into a shop or store.

Not 'the pot calling the kettle black' situation, more like 'the steelworks calling the kettle black'. 

    

[Shyheels]

Er...no. 

And I think you are being a bit disingenuous here.

The identifiable people in my images were all people who were quite happy to be photographed, agreed to it expressly and in some cases were given money. Others were in large crowd scenes, with hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people milling about - as in the spice markets, long shots down crowded streets, the pictures being of Stone Town itself rather than any individual people etc. This offended precisely nobody. I used long lenses in order not to intrude my own presence into the story - by being present, close up, I would have altered the dynamic - generally because I would have been surrounded by hucksters and would-be guides crowding close with their hands out.  You seem to know very little about journalism, photojournalism, street photography, rights, usages, or indeed foreign travel 

  

 

 

[FastFreddy2]

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

  You seem to know very little about journalism, photojournalism, street photography, rights, usages, or indeed foreign travel 

  

And as we are now trading insults, you seem to know little about comparing apples with apples.

Lets keep the point to photographing people eh?  And avoid 'straw-man' point scoring. 

 

I take candids in places where people are used to having their image recorded. If you don't like it, you'll just have to suck it up.

You take photographs of people who didn't want their photographs taken and where it was culturally offensive, using the same method I use, discretion. "Snap" You are doing it for money, with the full intent on publishing those images. And that doesn't make you a hypocrite? Your excuse/justification was that no individual was identifiable, "snap" again. You don't use a 'model release' where numbers make it impractical .... "Snap". "Offended precisely nobody". "Snap" again. Are you seeing any apples yet?

 

You are right I know little of travelling despite having to 'commute' to work using aircraft for a period, but the rest; "been there, done that". And, I'm qualified to do it too! At least I'm not trying to enforce a law that doesn't exist. (And you claim to be an expert on "rights"?)  Did it never occur to you that I might have friends in publishing, that I might have 'street candids' published, or had essays (on computing) published, or management guides (Uni) published? Nor business projects (3 months work) published for multimillion pound companies? I don't need to 'validate' myself by trying to demean others. You are successful, well done. But don't assume I've spent my life pushing empty trolleys around outside a local supermarket.    

 

This is another silly "debate", rather like inferring Carl Zeiss would build-in astigmatism.... When they actually spend millions trying to design it out of their lenses.  

If you like to argue, make it about something worthwhile ... EU -- In/Out? Immigration?

But don't try and "own" photography here or anywhere, because it isn't yours to 'lord it over'. The best any of us can hope for, is an opinion that people want to listen to. And if you ever wanted to change mine, telling me how ignorant I am of your world, is not the way to do it. Have you learned nothing of Englishmen during your time here?

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by FastFreddy2
Added last 'snap'.

[Shyheels]

Not really interested in debating anything with you on the subjects of photography or photojournalism. I have had a long and distinguished career with some of the world's great magazines and quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. I began this by giving you a gentle hint that furtively snapping pics of ladies' high heels was likely to get you picked up and bounced for being perv. It was good advice. It didn't take. Fine. No skin off my nose. Go and be happy. 

Here endeth the discussion.

 

 

[FastFreddy2]

On 10/05/2016 at 3:37 PM, Shyheels said:

 I began this by giving you a gentle hint that furtively snapping pics of ladies' high heels was likely to get you picked up and bounced for being perv. It was good advice. It didn't take. Fine. No skin off my nose. Go and be happy. 

Here endeth the discussion.

 

 

 

Me and the rest of the Western world have been taking 'candid' photo's for years (lifetimes), and the custom is getting less and less unusual, together with video'ing, as a visit to You Tube will confirm. While you claim your "advice" was well-meant, from the balance of your "advice", it becomes obvious it was far from it. Referring to me as a pervert, 'Lording it over' to the last, despite doing the same thing yourself. (Surreptitious photography.)

 

Edit:

**** On second thoughts, 'the world' doesn't really need to know about me. ****

 

We've all done stuff. We've all had a life. We've all done things to be proud of.

Hopefully, here endeth a second lecture I didn't ask for.

Edited May 11, 2016 by FastFreddy2
Grammar, as usual.

[Puffer]

I did once invent a silent door knocker - but it failed to win any No-bell prize.  

[FastFreddy2]

5 hours ago, Puffer said:

I did once invent a silent door knocker - but it failed to win any No-bell prize.  

[Heels]

This thread has gone way of topic. I think Fred knows the risks when taking photos.  Now that  I seen the whole photo I see nothing wrong  with the way he took the photo. Anyone would think he took a photo of the street and not the couple.

Getting back to the topic started by the O.P.  He should buy a size 12uk.boot. if a little big, just wear  a pair of socks. Wearing socks make the boots more comfortable to wear anyway. Pleaser do seem to be a much better brand these days..  Just bear in mind walking in stilettos on a hard pavement is much more difficult then on carpet. You should be able to walk in a 5 inch stiletto with out to much problem.