Search

[slow_walker]

I am curious to see what everyone's opinion is on this:

Is it rude / annoying / weird to take pictures in public places such as restaurants, bowling alley's, the Saloon Show at SDC, etc.? There are a lot of places where I want to take pictures that I feel like I shouldn't just because it's not a normal picture taking place. I have no trouble taking pics of people or crowds who are outside in front of a building or something. Maybe it's the flash that's the difference? When you take a pic outside generally no one notices.

Do you guys take pics in these types of places? Does it bother you if other people do?

[tinmann620]

I'm not the person to ask...LOL I took over 10,000, last year, just at SDC!  I've taken many indoors, but I have a half way decent digital that I don't always need a flash for.  I usually go early, or when the weather isn't the best, so few people are around,

[Junior]

My feeling...connected to the time I was a news reporter...is that if you are in public, you voluntarily have relinquished some of your right to privacy.
Taking a picture in the saloon show or on the streets of SDC or in a music show in Branson seems just fine to me. After all, you more than likely are a visitor who is enjoying a vacation and you want to snap some shots for your scrapbook. No problem. If you are a 42 year old man dressed only in a Speedo and are taking photos of kids at a nursery school or playground...then you got trouble, and anyone who sees you should speak up or get a cop, fast! Ha! Ha! The only time I've asked if it was alright to shoot a picture is in a church service when a family baptism was taking place. You are in public, but since the event is tied to someone's religious practice, you might outta ask before snapping away. 

[Swoosh]

I'm not the person to ask...LOL I took over 10,000, last year, just at SDC!

Same here.

[slow_walker]

So maybe my problem is that I worry too much about what other people think. lol. I'm always worried some one's gonna be thinking "what a weirdo".

[sdcforever]

So maybe my problem is that I worry too much about what other people think. lol. I'm always worried some one's gonna be thinking "what a weirdo".

I believe the attitude toward picture changing has really changed in the last five to ten years due to the prevalence of digital photography.  Now most people don't mind if you're taking a picture in a public place.  Ten years ago or so you might've gotten some strange looks taking a photo of a street corner (or whatever), and someone might've commented "Why is he/she wasting film on that?"  Now people take pictures all the time if they have a digital camera, and most don't even bother printing them out.  They either sit on the camera or get uploaded to a computer and then to the internet.  With digital photograpy photos are pretty much "free", so people take them whenever and wherever they want, and don't mind others doing the same.

[rubedugans]

Like Tinman, I have thousands of photos from last year alone...I have no apprehensions about shooting a photo if it strikes me as a good image.
With the camera(s) that I carry around, People already look at me weird!
I carry my 1951 Kodak and my 1949 Argoflex

for TTV shots (Through The viewfinder) like these...



and I also carry my 1964 Polaroid 100 Land Camera

for shots like these...

[slow_walker]

Those are awesome. 

[Twinsmom98]

I feel that taking pictures indoors and outdoors is just fine.  I don't know how many pictures I have of strangers.  But I would feel uncomfortable if a person was only taking pictures of children especially my children without my permission.

Sometimes I just take pictures of the buildings and scenery and you cannot avoid people in the picture.  If people don't approve well that is just too bad and get out of my way.

I feel that if a person is uncomfortable with you taking pictures they should remove themselves from the place or the line of view.  

Personally, I enjoy looking at the pictures and have saved numerous to my computer at home and work.

[Zephon]

Having been an entertainer, I have a word of caution about taking flash pictures in show settings, like the Saloon or the Opera House.  Much of the time, the flashes do not bother the entertainers, but there are times when flashes can be disorienting.  For example, I strongly caution against taking a flash photo when the entertainers are dancing on the bar in the Saloon.  The same would go for acts that do a lot of acrobatics in their shows, like the Chinese during World Fest.  Things like that require a certain amount of concentration on the part of the entertainer, and a flash going off in their face or even their peripheral vision can really throw them off for a second...long enough for an accident to happen.  For that reason, many of the shows forbid flash photos.  And then there is also the random idiot who wants to take a flash photo of a magic trick, just so they can see how it's done.  They don't seem to care that they ruin it for everyone else in the theater. 

Feel free to take all the non-flash photos you want though.

Another thing I've noticed, particularly in the Opera House during the Dickens Christmas Carol show, is that people like to take flash photos of the projection on the scrim during the pre-show.  Do they not realize that their flash will wash out the projection image, and all they will get is a picture of a whitish scrim/screen?  The same goes for taking flash pictures of the "graveyard scene," when Scrooge is singing "Little Altar Boy" or the angel is singing "Ave Maria."  There is a scrim in front of that scene and a flash will result in a picture of that scrim, not the action which is visible to the eye behind it.  If you want a picture of those scenes, you must use a camera that is suited for taking low light pictures without a flash.  I've often wondered how upset people get when their pictures don't reveal what they were looking at.

Just my two cents.

[Swoosh]

^Speaking of Dickens... it cracks me up when people still use the one time use cameras (OTUC) and sit 10 rows back and expect the same quality of a shot that my Nikon takes.  OTUC are pieces of crap anyway.  I'm surprised to still see them around and it shocks me even more when someone is using them in such a low light area.  It's hard enough to get a good shot with a good camera, let alone a OTUC.

[Zephon]

^LOL...I agree.  But I imagine that some of them forgot their cameras in the motel room and bought one at HH just to have something to take pictures with.

Swoosh, do you get good, unblurred pictures of action/movement in low light situations with your Nikon?

[Swoosh]

^I'm just going on my second year of owning my Nikon and I'm still learning the best ways to shoot in low lighting -- right now action in low lighting is a crap shoot.  I've been able to get great shots without any blur but I've got my fair share of motion blurs in low light when shooting action.  It's quite annoying.  I've been reading on camera blogs on how to do it, but I'm just practiced enough yet to get it to my liking.

My P&S Kodak Digital camera however takes great motion in low light - it however cannot capture the detail that my Nikon can

[slow_walker]

I feel ya Swoosh. I have had a Nikon D40 for a year now and I still have a lot to learn. Especially with the low lighting action shots you're talking about.

[Swoosh]

I have the D60 and I amazed with some of the shots I can get with it, but then at other times I am down right disgusted that my P&S can take better shots in certain elements.