Well, as usual, Sunday night was active for the SoFla blogosphere. You guys make me work so hard on Monday morning! Have at it...
A- Habla Mierda does a kick-ass redesign of Miami Beach 411. Hopefully, they will approve.
B- Fort Lauderdale Daily Photo captures a pink Easter Bug.
C- Surprise! People can't stand it when Carlos Miller is a prick.
I flatly refused to give her my license and I informed her that I had every right to photograph her business.
“In fact, I have every legal right to photograph you,” I said as I reached up with my camera to snap a photo of her (this just infuriates the hell out of people).
I managed to get one shot off before she had her hands wrapped around my Canon 24-7-L f/2.8, a $1,200 lens attached to a $3,000 Canon 5D.
D- Blast Off! goes through something with his mother that I can soooo relate to.
E- Pandora's Bazaar takes a trip to IKEA and then gets philosophical.
F- Miami Beach 411 has the complete low-down on the Winter Music Conference and FUNKSHION, both going down this week.
G- Incertus makes an excellent point about the Iraq death toll numbers.
H- Wow. The comments for Obalesque's Easter post got kinda out of control this weekend.
I- Tilefortlauderdale drops Lydia at Waxy O'Connor's.
.
26 comments:
Not that I always agree with Carlos Miller (and I can't believe I'm defending him) but in this article I don't see him coming off as a prick. He was taking pictures, which is completely legal, the lady blew up and grabbed his camera, which she has no right to do and she tried to illegally detain him. Not sure I see where he was being the prick.
I think it was the not leaving well enough alone, and snapping the one "infuriating" picture...
Yep, that had prick written all over it. Even if Carlos was right.
It's fun and games, til someone pokes an eye out.
Not as prickish as Grapevine harassing booth workers (to prove what?) but prickish. Although the lady was probably irritating as hell.
Carlos, education by in-your-face picture snapping is going to get you a broken camera one day. Then you have to escalate by calling the cops on her for assault, suing her for the camera, etc. Is it worth it? I'm not talking about standing up to the guy at Versailles or to a security guard, but to run of the mill people who don't know what the law is.
I was really trying to maintain my cool in this situation because I really wanted interview her (as it turns out, I was able to interview her husband who was much more rational).
But she kept demanding my license as if she wearing a badge and a gun.
And we had actually gone back and forth about whether or not it was legal to photograph her business from the outside for several minutes at this point.
I just condensed what actually happened for quicker reading.
And I was standing there, arguing with her, I kept thinking I needed to get a photo of this, even though I knew it was going to piss her off.
I didn't really do it to piss her off, I just did it because I would have kicked myself a hundred times had I left there without a photo of her.
I've gone through these situations thousands of times in my life. Where you want to get the photo, but then you hesitate because you know people will get upset, but then you go home and regret not taking the photo.
Every photographer has gone through this.
It's better to just take the photo and deal with the consequences.
Carlos: there's a saying about deciding "if this is the hill you want to die on." It's not meant literally, but it does mean to pick your battles wisely.
Fortunately for you, all that women and her associate did was try to grab your camera. Someday, especially in this town, there's going to be more involved and it will be at that point where you have to ask yourself if it was worth it to take someone's picture.
No disrespect to MB411, but I doubt this assignment was the hill you wanted to die on.
.
Rick,
I do pick my battles, believe it or not, and this is one battle where I figured I would not wind up dead on a hill.
For example, during my Palm Beach run-in with police, I was so tempted to take their photo as they were talking to me.
But I knew that would have gotten me arrested, even if they would have been forced to throw the charges out later.
So I ended up photographing them as they were walking away, which is not nearly as strong of a photo.
But at least I didn't wind up in a jail cell. Or dead on a hill.
Maybe the photo of the Asian lady is not going to win me a Pulitzer, but I still would have regretted not photographing her.
And I figured if I could defend myself against a mob of crazed Cuban exiles, I could surely defend myself against a tiny Asian lady.
I could surely defend myself against a tiny Asian lady.
Two words for you, Crouching Carlos...
quart-of-blood technique
Nonee,
I had to look that up and was reminded of one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.
http://www.killerclips.com/clip.php?id=43&qid=240
Rick,
That's the whole point of my blog. As citizens of the United States, we have the legal right to photograph people and places if we are standing outside.
But the fact that some people get so touchy about this ends up intimidating many photographers from taking the photo.
Is it really a First Amendment right if we are intimidated from taking a simple photo?
Is it really Freedom of Speech if we are intimidated from speaking our mind?
That's Cuba. Not the United States.
The fact that I was intimidated from photographing the Palm Beach police officers as they surrounded me on a public street is infuriating.
I was cooperating with them. I gave them my license. I was completely honest about what I was doing.
But I saw it in the cop's eyes that if I would have dared take his photo, he would have slammed me to the ground and handcuffed me, like those Miami cops did.
That's Cuba. And unfortunately, that's also the United States.
Nonee, Carlos is a karate man! He bruises on the inside!
I agree that you should have taken the picture, and dealt with the consequences later. That's journalism. But my understanding is that you were doing some piece about computer stores, not exactly breaking news. The fact that the piece itself was not really dependent on this woman, or a picture of her, starts to make it sound like you were the bad-guy here-standing on some principle that really didn't need defending here. Not that you were the bad guy-just sounds that way.
Carlos: I "get" what you do at your blog and your passion for this subject and your profession. But when you do something needlessly like take this lady's photo with the apparent desire just to piss her off then, I'm sorry, I can't go with you there. At that point it goes beyond exercising your rights to just an attempt to aggravate someone who you don't agree with.
.
.
30 Dogs 30 Days,
The photo of the women has nothing to do with the story. The incident is not even going to be mentioned in the article.
But I do maintain a blog about photographers' rights, and the altercation we were having was perfectly suited for my blog, which is why I took her photo.
Rick,
I did not take her photo with the purpose of pissing her off. I took the photo knowing she was going to get pissed off. There is a difference.
I took her photo because I am driven to document these type of altercations.
If she didn't want her photo taken, she shouldn't have come up in my face and start making up absurd laws.
“In fact, I have every legal right to photograph you,” I said as I reached up with my camera to snap a photo of her (this just infuriates the hell out of people).
I know you say otherwise, Carlos, but, I'm sorry, this has all the earmarkings of someone who was trying to piss someone else off. If this hadn't been in that post I would have much more sympathetic to what you were doing and your situation.
.
Rick,
Don't you think the idea to turn this incident into an actual blog post crossed my mind while I was debating this woman?
I treat my blog as a news site. To me, what was happening between me and that woman may not really have been relative to the actual computer article, but it was extremely relevant to my blog.
There is no way I was just going to ignore it, or choose to not shoot the photo, because of the obvious fact that she was not going to like getting her photo taken.
The point I've been trying to make for almost a year on my blog is that it really doesn't matter whether or not you like getting your photo taken while you're standing in public.
It is that person's right to photograph you, whether you be a cop, a civilian or a business owner.
And the question I've been trying to answer, but haven't been unable to, is why are so many people so paranoid about getting their photo taken?
Especially when the government is monitoring our every move anyway, as was reported on your blog today.
I wasn't trying to piss her off. I was trying to prove a point.
And, again, Carlos, I'll say that while you very well may have been trying to prove a point, your writing and the way you articulated it in the post made it sound vindictive.
That's all I'm saying.
.
"why are so many people so paranoid about getting their photo taken?"
Because it's an invasion of their privacy and their personal space. Duh.
We have come to this compromise where when we are in a public area we have no reasonable expectation of privacy, but it is just that, a compromise. The candid shots some people love to take or the "photojournalism" shots with no news value, are an intrusion on people's privacy.
It's a matter of decency not to take somebody's picture if they ask not to. You are putting your crusade over people's feelings. I say that it's too easy to snap pictures of people and that I'd respect yor crusade more if you tested the Palm Beach cops, for example.
You are acting like a bully with a camera. The fact that you wrote "it infuriates the hell out of people" shows that you know exactly what the effect is. One day you'll end with a broken camera or worse, and the law may be on your side, but very little sympathy.
Alex,
The day I end up with a broken camera, someone will end up with a broken nose. If not worse. I guarantee that.
Besides, my camera gear is insured.
So you're saying this woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy after she storms out of her business, gets in my face, ignores my reasonable explanation, demands my driver license and orders her co-worker to call 911 when I refuse to give it to her?
You're saying I should still respect her "personal space" because I'm the "bully" in this case?
Should I have handed over my driver license in a continuing effort to respect her "personal space"?
Maybe get down on my knees and kiss her feet?
I don't know where you have been over the last several decades, but the courts have ruled over and over that a photographer's right to photograph what he or she sees in public outweighs what that person considers "private space".
So your personal opinion is just that. An opinion that has no legal bearing.
And why should cops be allowed to film our every move, yet civilians not allowed to do the same?
This woman sells security cameras for a living. She is encouraging that invasion of privacy you mention. Don't you find that a little ironic?
You're right. I was not surprised by her reaction. But that's the difference between me and you. You would take that as a sign not to take her photo. You wouldn't want to risk damage to your camera. You wouldn't want to be seen as a "bully".
You would allow her to intimidate you from taking a photo you not only have every right to take, but that you should take, considering a situation like this needs to be documented because she is calling 911 and no telling what she will tell the police once they arrive.
You obviously are allowing your contempt for me to defend and sympathize with the poor, innocent store clerk whom you claim was victimized.
As long as people keep getting in my face for my photography, I will continue to put my "crusade over people's feelings."
Blah blah blah. Yes, you resisted intimidation from a woman who is five feet tall at best. Wow. That valiant attitude would have come in handy with the Palm Beach cops.
Worry less where I was during the past few decades and worry more about where were you a minute ago when you read my comment: I already mentioned there's no expectation of privacy which is exactly the legal standard. I have never said that cops should be allowed to photograph us while we can't do the same. So learn to read and save the arrogance for court.
(BTW, the security cameras she's selling, if she's selling it to private persons, they will likely be installed in their private property, counselor. Some legal expert you are. Incidentally why are you so "paranoid" about security cameras if you are so open about free photography?)
You asked a question and that's the answer. Legal or not, people don't like a photographer pushing a big lens in their face and people expect said photographer to have the decency to respect their space. You don't have to respect it but don't try to convince us that your acts have any larger societal value. The difference between me and you is that I don't believe in bullying people with my "rights".
I mean, what's the point you are trying to make? That some (definitely not the majority) private citizens don't know their picture can be taken in public without their consent? You know what: STIPULATED. Now what does that accomplish? You are going to educate people one altercation at a time?
You want to really make your blog useful activism? Take more pictures of cops and get arrested a few more times. (Expensive? Well, it is a worthy cause.) Or follow up with the Palm Beach police department and the city. File a complaint, send letters, email, involve the papers, etc. Post everything in your blog. Put the people in power under the microscope.
That's real activism BECAUSE the real danger to "photography as a first amendment right" comes from the government, not from private persons touching your camera because they don't know who the creep taking their picture is.
Alex,
Let me replay the scenario for you. I was working on an article for Miami Beach 411 about the computer stores off Milan Dairy Road.
One of the stores was busier than the others and I did not want to interrupt anything, so I stepped back outside with the intention of contacting them later.
I would really have liked to have taken a photo on the inside, but I always like to ask permission first -- if I am inside the establishment.
So I stepped outside to take a photo of the outside of the store as well as the view through the open door.
This is purely commercial area in a very industrial section of Miami. Hundreds of people must pass through that parking lot every day.
I snapped a few shots and then started walking to my car.
She came out and called after me, wondering why I was taking photos.
She didn't have the most pleasant attitude. This is what bothers me about people who are suspicious of photographers, they always come across in a very accusatory tone.
I can understand being curious, but why not just ask the photographer in a nice way why he or she is taking photos?
No, they always have to treat the photographer as if he were some pedophile or something (and no, I'm not one of these guys who goes around photographing children in playgrounds).
I explained to her that I was working on an article. I gave her my business card. I explained that I did not want to interrupt their business and I was planning on contacting them later.
She maintained her accusatory tone and demanded my driver license.
Now let's be realistic here. All I was doing was taking photos from the outside of her business. The door to the store was open. People were walking in and out.
To the casual observer, I was either a tourist or a photojournalist because I was not being sneaky about photographing her business.
What did she suspect my intentions truly were?
Did she think I went through the trouble of printing up colorful, glossy business cards with a photograph on the back to be able to photograph her business?
Maybe she is the one with something to hide.
When I refused to hand her my driver license, she threatened to call the cops because she claimed I had no legal right to photograph her business from the outside.
Whether it's cops or civilians, I'm truly sick of people telling me where I can and cannot take photos. This is a subject I have researched extensively. I know what I can and cannot do.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind getting treated like a criminal for doing your job, but I am tired of it.
This is not something that started last year with my arrest, this is something that has been building up for ten years. My arrest was actually my breaking point.
And now that I'm not restricted by the corporate media chains, I've decided to make a stand for photographers rights.
I really don't understand how you can claim I invaded her "personal space" when she was the one in my face. She was the one demanding my license. She was the one telling me I was not allowed to leave until the cops arrived.
Whether she is five feet tall or seven feet tall doesn't make a difference.
The fact that she is small woman rather than a large man gives her more of a leeway to be aggressive because I am not one to strike women.
But I am also not going to be a pushover.
Carlos: What if she had had waved at you from the store instead of confronting you? Would you have taken her picture? I think not. And that right there, coupled along with your initial remark that has since been clarified on your blog, demonstrates what your intentions were. She was being a jerk so you decided to be one too to even the score.
Justify it and dance around it all you want, but the bottom line is that you wanted to get a little payback when you pointed the camera at her and shot. And maybe a little blogging material.
For a man whose profession is photography, what you did was unprofessional.
In my opinion.
.
Rick,
If she would have approached me in a non-confrontational manner, I would have done the same thing I did: hand her my card and explain that I'm writing an article.
But instead of snapping her photo like I did, I probably would have asked her to stand in front of the store so I could get a photo of her with the store in the background for my article.
That is how things usually work out.
You've never met me, Rick, but I am actually an easy-going person. I'd much rather get along with people rather than wage war with them.
But I am not one to back down when I am challenged or disrespected either.
Although I clarified what I wrote on my blog, I did not change what I originally wrote. I just added a three sentence update because I realized how it was coming across to certain people, mainly you and Alex.
You can define what I did by saying I was trying to "even the score" and it might even be true.
She kept saying I was not allowed to photograph her business, I kept saying I was allowed, so finally I snapped her photo just to show her that not only am I allowed to photograph her business, I am also allowed to photograph her.
And the fact that she reached out and grabbed my lens, and the fact that I was able to frame her face perfectly between her index and middle fingers, turned an otherwise routine photo into a very interesting shot.
And that, more than anything, is what it really boils down to for me. Getting that cool shot.
Rick,
The photo I ended up taking of her reminds me of one of my favorite photos taken by my good friend, Al Crespo.
http://alcrespophoto.com/images/slices/fw_splash_r1_c1.jpg
Of course his photo is much better because it's at a protest and his subject looks a lot more intimidating than my subject.
Carlos, you could have saved yourself writing that rehash -I understood perfectly what happened. You asked why people are paranoid to have their picture taken and that's why, like it or not.
As far as your crusade, which I have always said it has merits, let me put it as clearly as I can:
Snapping the picture of a cop who should know the law (even if you go to jail): good. Snapping the picture of a private citizen who doesn't have the power to stop you, just to infuriate her: pointless.
Alex,
But it wasn't just to infuriate her. True, I was trying to prove a point, but the overwhelming reason I snapped the photo is because I wanted to document the altercation.
And the fact that the photo came out like it did makes it a photo that tells a story.
That is what you don't seem to understand. That beyond all the crusades and debates and paranoia is that it ultimately comes down to capturing a moment in time.
And I did that perfectly.
This is what Henri Cartier-Bresson called "the decisive moment". He was the master of that.
This is how he described the decisive moment.
"There is a creative fraction of a second when you are taking a picture. Your eye must see a composition or an expression that life itself offers you, and you must know with intuition when to click the camera. That is the moment the photographer is creative. Oop! The Moment! Once you miss it, it is gone forever."
Twenty years from now when I decide to publish a book of my photography and experiences that photo will most likely end up in the book.
And that is why I have no regrets about taking that photo.
I was compelled to feel her surgically enhanced... ears. They were in a public place. I knew it would infuriate her. But, it's what I do.
Dude, someday you're gonna bump into someone who won't mind the 20 hours of community service it will cost to shove that camera up your f-stop. But look on the bright side: You'll have plenty of pictures of the incident for your blog.
And by incident, I mean your colon. Sometimes, work can be a real pain in the ass.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.