Pennsic XXX
Achbar ibn Ali
seems as if allot of people were moved around this year. All in
all...I had a Great time.
The Battles were Great. It would have been Greta if we had more
Archer battles. Archers annoy me and keep me on my toes. This is
a good thing.
I took a Turban Tying Class and learned more than I expected. The
Fatamids and a host of others. Until now...my person was more or less
Spanish Moor. Now...There are more choices. I need to learn more
about Turkish Garb now.
Yes..this Pennsic was fun. The drumming was as annoying in large
numbers as ever. Drumming in smaller groups is mu choice now.
Different instruments are showing up in Drumming circles. I love
this. It is badly needed.
In fact...this whole Middle Eastern Dance sensation at Pennsic is
nice, but I would love to see more variety. How did all of this start
in the first place? I am not complaining, but when you can not throw
a Brick and hit a belly dancer...you have to wonder what is next.
Playing a silly doumbek is easy. I have played one for years.
This helped me get dates with those before mentioned belly dancers.
Now...could we direct our energy towards a wider variety of
instruments. In short...I am getting sick of drums. Better
yet...bad drumming and worse, bad drummers. People should never
drink and drum. What can we do to encourage other instruments?
The water at Pennsic was as bat as it has been in year. That
water is the only water I know of that spoils..so you have to drink
it quickly. I use bottle water for drinking. There were complaints
at the Giant Eagle about people in weird Clothing buying up all the
water.
All in all...I had a Great Pennsic XXX
Achbar
thomas
Achbar ibn Ali <ach...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<0854otohg7g5q43et...@4ax.com>...
> In fact...this whole Middle Eastern Dance sensation at Pennsic is
> nice, but I would love to see more variety. How did all of this start
> in the first place? I am not complaining, but when you can not throw
> a Brick and hit a belly dancer...you have to wonder what is next.
> Playing a silly doumbek is easy. I have played one for years.
> This helped me get dates with those before mentioned belly dancers.
> Now...could we direct our energy towards a wider variety of
> instruments. In short...I am getting sick of drums. Better
> yet...bad drumming and worse, bad drummers.
Well, you sorta answered your own question. Playing a doumbek is easy,
(well, the basics are easy to acquire - at least a bodhran takes a bit more
skill) and playing one sparks the hope of attracting the attention of the
aforementioned belly dancers.
I have no problem with doumbeks or belly dancers taken in moderation. What
I do object to is the nit-wits who will drag out a drum and start hammering
out a mid-eastern dance beat at the drop of the proverbial hat, no matter
where he is and no matter what else is going on. I speak from experience
here. It happens quite a bit at local events as well as at Pennisc. As a
guitar player and singer, I have learned that there is no vocalist who can
out-volume or out-last a doumbek. This phenomenon has led to the coining of
the phrase: "Doumbeks come in four sizes; bare-foot, tennis shoe, combat
boot, and riding boot, with spur. The footgear necessary to kick the heads
in on the d--n things."
Though the comment would be more appropriately aimed at the pea-brain
holdign the doumbek. Like I said it isn't the drum, it's the drummer.
Morgan
EXCMairi
>(well, the basics are easy to acquire - at least a bodhran takes a bit more
>skill)
If playing a doumbek is easy, then why are there so many bad doumbek players? ;
)
Mairi (who long ago figured out that it's not the doumbeks in general she can't
listen to, it's the really bad doumbek players!)
Ted Eisenstein
> The water at Pennsic was as bat as it has been in year. That
> water is the only water I know of that spoils..so you have to drink
> it quickly. I use bottle water for drinking. There were complaints
> at the Giant Eagle about people in weird Clothing buying up all the
> water.
So do what I did this year for the first time: bring a pitcher-with-filter
device for drinking water.
Alban
James Koch
Dear Mr. Achbar
>
Achbar ibn Ali wrote:
>
> This was a good Pennsic. There was a Huge mix up with Camps. It
> seems as if allot of people were moved around this year. All in
> all...I had a Great time.
> The Battles were Great. It would have been Greta if we had more
> Archer battles. Archers annoy me and keep me on my toes. This is
> a good thing.
> I took a Turban Tying Class and learned more than I expected. The
> Fatamids and a host of others. Until now...my person was more or less
> Spanish Moor. Now...There are more choices. I need to learn more
> about Turkish Garb now.
> Yes..this Pennsic was fun. The drumming was as annoying in large
> numbers as ever. Drumming in smaller groups is mu choice now.
> Different instruments are showing up in Drumming circles. I love
> this. It is badly needed.
>
stringed instruments, flutes, and bag pipes (Eastern and Irish)
interspersed with the drums and the effect was excellent. Of course
these were groups which were used to playing together. When the bad
drunk drummers showed up the effect was ruined. I heard more bad
drumming and more excellent drumming this year than ever before.
> In fact...this whole Middle Eastern Dance sensation at Pennsic is
> nice, but I would love to see more variety. How did all of this start
> in the first place? I am not complaining, but when you can not throw
> a Brick and hit a belly dancer...you have to wonder what is next.
>
there were numerous bands of roving minstrels, bards, and bagpipers at
Pennsic. The Scottish bagpipers (for example) are now nearly all gone.
Of course as many people complained about them as now complain about the
drums! It's good to see period instruments showing up in such numbers
and in such skilled hands. Of course if you want to hear these people
play you will have to do so at the food court rather than at parties
unless they have been hired to perform. There are still a few bardic
circles with no loud drumming and dancing, but you have to seek them
out. The big parties attract drummers and the drummers attract more
drummers. The people who host most big parties like the drummers since
they also attract party goers (think fog horn), and most hosts want a
large turn out.
>
> Playing a silly doumbek is easy. I have played one for years.
> This helped me get dates with those before mentioned belly dancers.
> Now...could we direct our energy towards a wider variety of
> instruments. In short...I am getting sick of drums. Better
> yet...bad drumming and worse, bad drummers. People should never
> drink and drum. What can we do to encourage other instruments?
>
"Designated Drummer" bumper stickers? What I'd really like to hear
would be jigs and such played on renaissance fiddles, flutes, pipes, and
bodhrains (sp?), and hurdy gurdies (sp!?). The dancing in the barn
annoys me. I've contra danced for 20 years and the callers at Pennsic
just don't know how to choose, teach, and lead a good dance. Simple
country dances around a fire would be nice. Since I camp with the Sloan
Gypsies I'd go for a bit of fiddle music. Perhaps I'll seek out a few
fiddlers next Pennsic and hire them to play at our annual feast.
>
> The water at Pennsic was as bat as it has been in year. That
> water is the only water I know of that spoils..so you have to drink
> it quickly. I use bottle water for drinking. There were complaints
> at the Giant Eagle about people in weird Clothing buying up all the
> water.
>
had much worse! It was fine the first week. It was a bit strong though
by the end of the last week, worse than ever before. It's a great way
to add iron to your diet though.
>
> All in all...I had a Great Pennsic XXX
>
> Achbar
>
Robert A. Uhl
<ach...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> The water at Pennsic was as bat as it has been in year. That
> water is the only water I know of that spoils..so you have to drink
> it quickly. I use bottle water for drinking.
I don't drink water--fish make love in it:-)
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
More Slightly Less Common Latin Phrases:
Anulos qui animum ostendunt omnes gestemus!
Let's all wear mood rings!
Powers
I've often sat enjoying someone playing and or singing at Pennsic only
to have a doombec start up, attract others, and go on to drown out or
drive off the other musicians who were already entertaining people in
the area.
Perhaps we should encourage basic courtesy as a method of encouraging
other instruments?
Thomas
--
Best Regards,
W.Thomas Powers
Cynthia Virtue
> Perhaps we should encourage basic courtesy as a method of encouraging
> other instruments?
Trouble is, a drum's area of influence can be large indeed, and even if
the player is courteous, taking the time to survey a square quarter-mile
of campsites is prohibitive.
--
Cynthia Virtue and/or Cynthia du Pré Argent
There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything
you hear or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking. --
Alfred Korybski.
Powers
>> other instruments?
>
>Trouble is, a drum's area of influence can be large indeed, and even if
>the player is courteous, taking the time to survey a square quarter-mile
>of campsites is prohibitive.
OTOH one expects some background noise at events; however each time it
occurred the drummers were in plain sight of the other musicians.
Curt Halbrook
<0854otohg7g5q43et...@4ax.com>:
[snip]
> In fact...this whole Middle Eastern Dance sensation at Pennsic is
>nice, but I would love to see more variety. How did all of this start
>in the first place? I am not complaining, but when you can not throw
>a Brick and hit a belly dancer...you have to wonder what is next.
Our band, which plays Middle-Eastern music, had something like 12
performances at Pennsic. I can't tell you how many times we tried to get
women that were dressed in "belly dancer" (and I say that with the
_loosest_ of definitions; trim on a bra does not a belly dancer costume
make) to dance with us! I was threatening to start passing out cotehardies
to these bra-babes.
> Playing a silly doumbek is easy. I have played one for years.
>This helped me get dates with those before mentioned belly dancers.
>Now...could we direct our energy towards a wider variety of
>instruments. In short...I am getting sick of drums. Better
>yet...bad drumming and worse, bad drummers. People should never
>drink and drum. What can we do to encourage other instruments?
[snip]
Other insturments take skill. The drum doesn't. Now, to play the drum
_well_ does, but to just play it, doesn't.
I have been to a few drum circles, and some was very well-done, because
they were led by a drum leader. When the circle is 'every man for himself'
the circle quickly becomes a mess. Every person that fancies himself a
good drummer starts doing flourishes. The next thing you know, instead of
a drum circle, it sounds more like rain on a tin roof.
The other downside for middle-eastern insturments in drum circles is the
fact that they are really really quiet. I am referring to the string ones;
the zurna is plenty loud. (Joke: How do you get two zurna players in tune?
Shoot one.) The baglama saz's soundhole is on the bottom of the body, and
the oud's nylon strings just don't project well enough to be heard over any
amound of drumming. The tar has a chance of being heard, since it uses
metal strings with a metal plectrum, but not much.
Face it: drumming is here to stay. Just get used to "Dum Dum tekateka Tek,
DUM tekatekatek tekatekatek." :)
>
>
>Achbar
>
>
>
David Debono
wrote:
I can only assume from this that there were some drummers playing who
do not have the common decency to play with the musicians. I have, and
do, play a Boudrahn and enjoy the music but I have had session people
say directly to me that the only good way for a drummer to play is
with a Stanley Knife...... They have always apologised after the
session though *smile*
Is this what we are talking about?
If so then I wish that people would understand that drummers augment
music and assist. A good drummer *can* carry the beat but should never
*run* the beat to the exclusion of the music...
Sorry all but a bit of a soap-box of mine. Most good musicians
appreciate good drummers (it is an instrument after all!). Most good
drummers hate bad drummers as we all have to put up with the fall-out
that this generates.
Take care all
David D.
The Mediaeval Combat Society
The Historical Reenactment Web Site
http://www.montacute.net/histrenact/welcome.htm
Wilson Heydt
Cynthia Virtue <cvi...@thibault.org> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we should encourage basic courtesy as a method of encouraging
>> other instruments?
>
>Trouble is, a drum's area of influence can be large indeed, and even if
>the player is courteous, taking the time to survey a square quarter-mile
>of campsites is prohibitive.
Someday...get me to tell you about the Caidan Royal Encampment at
the West-Caid War when I was Kingdom Constable.....
The killer line was, "If you don't want to do it my way, we can go
talk to the king [of the West] and let him sort it out. Maybe I'll
get lucky and he'll fire me!"
--
Hal Ravn, Old Used Constable Hal Heydt
Mists, Mists, West Albany, CA
"They didn't call him Erik Bloodaxe because he was good with children."
--National Geograhic, May 2000
Wilson Heydt
David Debono <david....@montacute.net> wrote:
>If so then I wish that people would understand that drummers augment
>music and assist. A good drummer *can* carry the beat but should never
>*run* the beat to the exclusion of the music...
>
>Sorry all but a bit of a soap-box of mine. Most good musicians
>appreciate good drummers (it is an instrument after all!). Most good
>drummers hate bad drummers as we all have to put up with the fall-out
>that this generates.
I am delighted to hear this opinion from a drummer. However, I note
that not all music is improved with the addition of drmming--even
excellent drumming, and any where in the vicinity of unconnected
drumming, most other music rather suffers.
While the natives may be restless, they not restless *all* the time.
--
Hal Ravn Hal Heydt
Tanya Guptill (Mira)
> When the circle is 'every man for himself'
> the circle quickly becomes a mess. Every person that fancies himself a
> good drummer starts doing flourishes. The next thing you know, instead of
> a drum circle, it sounds more like rain on a tin roof.
My thought is usually, "Sounds like a big bag of pots and pans falling down the
stairs..."
Mira, who loves GOOD drumming, but who likes to hear the singing, too...
--
http://www.teleport.com/~tguptill/tent.html
Nicole
Curt Halbrook wrote:
> Our band, which plays Middle-Eastern music, had something like 12
> performances at Pennsic. I can't tell you how many times we tried to get
> women that were dressed in "belly dancer" (and I say that with the
> _loosest_ of definitions; trim on a bra does not a belly dancer costume
> make) to dance with us! I was threatening to start passing out cotehardies
> to these bra-babes.
Hey, I was dying to dance at Pennsic this year... and hardly did. I refuse to
at any party where I've seen flashbulbs or camcorders. After all, I dance for
myself, I dance for the music, and I dance for the people around me... NOT the
audience later on the internet, NOT for that guy's drunk friends back home, and
certainly NOT for posterity's sake. It's that simple. One wants to enjoy the
dancer that night, great. One wants to preserve her forever on film, ask her
if she wants to be immortalized. So though I attended many parties in my
mostly-period ME garb (the hip sashes I wear aren't period and I know it),
barely danced at a one. Until they start outlawing filming and photographing
at night and/or people start having the decency to ask people before
recording/photographing them, it'll stay that way too. And I'm not the only
one who's hiding farther and farther from the campfire...
*sigh*
-Bianca
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Nicole Spaun Brown University
SCA: Lady Bianca di Bari Galileo Imaging
Dept. of Geological Sciences Planetary Geosciences Group
So why don't you tell me about the world you left behind? -DCD
Tero Heikkinen
Wilson Heydt <whh...@kithrup.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:GIFwD...@kithrup.com...
> While the natives may be restless, they not restless *all* the time.
With all that drumming going on, *no*wonder* the natives are restless.
Cheers,
Johan Magnusson
Hukka, Aarnimetsä, Drachenwald
--
In the event of his capture or death, Erituote Oy will disavow all knowledge
of a Mr. Tero HEIKKINEN.
Curt Halbrook
>Greetings,
>
>Curt Halbrook wrote:
>
>> Our band, which plays Middle-Eastern music, had something like 12
>> performances at Pennsic.
>> [snip]
>
>Hey, I was dying to dance at Pennsic this year... and hardly did. I refuse
>to at any party where I've seen flashbulbs or camcorders. After all, I
>dance for myself, I dance for the music, and I dance for the people around
>me... NOT the audience later on the internet, NOT for that guy's drunk
>friends back home, and certainly NOT for posterity's sake. It's that
>simple. One wants to enjoy the dancer that night, great. One wants to
>preserve her forever on film, ask her if she wants to be immortalized. So
>though I attended many parties in my mostly-period ME garb (the hip sashes
>I wear aren't period and I know it), barely danced at a one. Until they
>start outlawing filming and photographing at night and/or people start
>having the decency to ask people before recording/photographing them,
>it'll stay that way too. And I'm not the only one who's hiding farther
>and farther from the campfire... *sigh*
>-Bianca
>
.... ooooooooookay....
Do you really think that people should have to ask everyone's permission to
photograph or videotape when they are at a party? Does the fear of being
photographed keep you from doing other things that you enjoy doing?
-C
Arval d'Espas Nord
> I have, and do, play a Boudrahn and enjoy the music but I have had
> session people say directly to me that the only good way for a drummer to
> play is with a Stanley Knife.
To which the only answer is to play the drum with the knife, successfully
and with flair. Really: I've done it a couple times.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@panix.com
who also owns The Bodhran Page, http://www.ceolas.org/instruments/bodhran/
Nicole
Curt Halbrook wrote:
> > Until they
> >start outlawing filming and photographing at night and/or people start
> >having the decency to ask people before recording/photographing them,
> >it'll stay that way too. And I'm not the only one who's hiding farther
> >and farther from the campfire... *sigh*
> >-Bianca
> >
>
> .... ooooooooookay....
>
> Do you really think that people should have to ask everyone's permission to
> photograph or videotape when they are at a party? Does the fear of being
> photographed keep you from doing other things that you enjoy doing?
>
1) Frankly, yes. Honestly, I think they shouldn't be doing any of that in the
first place, let alone have to ask permission first. Firstly, flashbulbs are
dangerous at night if you're dancing around a campfire and are suddenly
instantly blinded. It ruins any medieval atmosphere and is generally annoying.
Secondly, what's wrong with asking someone's permission before photographing
them??? You make it sound like anyone attending a party should be expected to
be photographed!!! Seeing as these are parties at PENNSIC (read: mostly period
event where people are in personas, doing things they might not normally do),
the assumption should be that you will NOT be photographed and anything to the
contrary should be asked for. You want to take pictures of your friends and
get others randomly in the background, fine. But you want to take pictures of
a specific person without their permission, that's definitely not fine.
Besides, many parties like Men Without Pants were specifically disallowing
photography and yet the camera-happy types were taking pictures anyway! It's
rude and it doesn't belong. The assumption shouldn't be: I'm going to a party
at Pennsic so I should expect to be photographed. The assumption should be:
I'm bringing a camera to a party at Pennsic so I should expect to ask strangers
before taking their picture.
The burden of ettiquette is on the one bringing the modern camera to a period
event. Period.
2) I don't have a fear of being photographed. I rather enjoy it. Provided I
know the person taking the pictures or at least the 1purpose of the pictures
and have a say on when they get taken. I do wish people would ask first or
just not do it. It's common courtesy, which used to go hand in hand with
chivalry.......
-Bianca
erilar
wrote:
> However, I note
> that not all music is improved with the addition of drmming--even
> excellent drumming, and any where in the vicinity of unconnected
> drumming, most other music rather suffers.
Drum and harp? Not a good combo. Drums anywhere halfway nearby can wipe
out singing at Bardic Circles. Been there...
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Greg Lindahl
erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>Drum and harp? Not a good combo. Drums anywhere halfway nearby can wipe
>out singing at Bardic Circles. Been there...
I guess you've never heard the Barony of Ponte Alto's Harp & Drum
Corps in action...
Gregory Blount
David Debono
wrote:
>In article <16f5ot8deq5m82mtf...@4ax.com>,
>David Debono <david....@montacute.net> wrote:
>>If so then I wish that people would understand that drummers augment
>>music and assist. A good drummer *can* carry the beat but should never
>>*run* the beat to the exclusion of the music...
>>
>>Sorry all but a bit of a soap-box of mine. Most good musicians
>>appreciate good drummers (it is an instrument after all!). Most good
>>drummers hate bad drummers as we all have to put up with the fall-out
>>that this generates.
>
>I am delighted to hear this opinion from a drummer. However, I note
>that not all music is improved with the addition of drmming--even
>excellent drumming, and any where in the vicinity of unconnected
>drumming, most other music rather suffers.
>
That is the difference between drummers and people who bang
instruments with sticks of some sort or another. Any drummer worth
their salt would not accompany a piece just because they want to.
There are many times when I have just sat there and listened to the
music.
However there are many more peices played in the context that we are
talking about that are greatly enhanced with considerate accompanying
beat.Good musicians, certainly IMHO with sessions and such like music,
who love to work around rythms provided by th drum and the opposite
also happens working the rythm around the misic.
IME (and in order of likelyhood *smile*) guitar, fiddle and squeezebox
players are the most likely to take one look when you remove the drum
from its bag, sigh, and then start with the "the only way to play a
drum is with a Stanley Knife" insults and asides. It *does* happen.
It is a shame that people think it is easy to play a drum but there
you go!
Ho Hum......
Annie Walker
in:
Harp and drum can go well together if both know what each other are doing.
My husband and I certainly drum and harp as a duo, and it works well as both
of us know the limitations of the other. But any instrument played badly
can be incredibly irritating. The onus is on those with loud instruments to
play them better as they are more audible.
None of the events I've attended here in the UK have had a similar problem,
but I do sympathise - as a bodhran-playing friend of mine once said to an
enthusiastic but irritating beginner...
Beginner: *thud* *thudthudthud* *thud* *pause* *thudthudthud*
Player: We have a name for that! "Tennis Shoe in Dryer"!
Beginner: *thud* *thudthudthud* *thud* *pause* *thudthudthud*
Player: Just because it has a name doesn't mean it's GOOD. STOP IT!
Is it worth having a few very well known join-in songs to pull out in
moments of extreme "over-drumming"? A group of 30 or so enthusiastic
singers can drown an irritating drum attack. Mind you ... at 4am, *actual*
drowning might be an option too... ;-)
Annie
erilar <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:erilarloFRY-2C05...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> > While the natives may be restless, they not restless *all* the time.
>
> With all that drumming going on, *no*wonder* the natives are restless.
Actually, in my camp (Yama Kaminari, the folks with the taiko ensemble)
there was no drumming after ten. What was more "annoying" was the
exceedingly enthusiastic whoopie-making several nights out of the war in
the next tent in the next camp (separated from mine by six inches of
ground, a camp curtain, and six more inches of ground). I thought about
clapping a couple of times when it was all over...
Folks, just keep in mind; canvas is NOT a good insulator against traveling
sound.
Effingham
Curt Halbrook
>Greetings,
>
>Curt Halbrook wrote:
>
>> > Until they
>> >start outlawing filming and photographing at night and/or people start
>> >having the decency to ask people before recording/photographing them,
>> >it'll stay that way too. And I'm not the only one who's hiding farther
>> >and farther from the campfire... *sigh*
>> >-Bianca
>> >
>>
>> .... ooooooooookay....
>>
>> Do you really think that people should have to ask everyone's permission
>> to photograph or videotape when they are at a party? Does the fear of
>> being photographed keep you from doing other things that you enjoy
>> doing?
>>
>
>1) Frankly, yes. Honestly, I think they shouldn't be doing any of that in
>the first place, let alone have to ask permission first. Firstly,
>flashbulbs are dangerous at night if you're dancing around a campfire and
>are suddenly instantly blinded.
I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. I have been photographed at
night while juggling and didn't miss a ball. The lack of flaming belly
dancers would seem to somewhat diminish the "danger" of flash photography.
>It ruins any medieval atmosphere and is
>generally annoying.
Perhaps and depends. I have to question the "Medieval Atmosphere" of a
party that has a "Wet Chemise Party" or a "Scantily Clad Contest" (aside:
My wife was in that one at Pandora's Box. She was the first contestant,
and should have won, too.)
>Secondly, what's wrong with asking someone's
>permission before photographing them???
Nothing is wrong. I never said that. I said "Why should they have to?"
That in no way implies that it is wrong to. But you didn't answer my
question.
>You make it sound like anyone
>attending a party should be expected to be photographed!!!
I SAY:
Do you really think that people should have to ask everyone's permission to
photograph or videotape when they are at a party?
You think I MEAN:
You make it sound like anyone attending a party should be expected to be
photographed!!!
Whew...
That is a bit of a reach. Almost intellectually dishonest, even.
>Seeing as
>these are parties at PENNSIC (read: mostly period event where people are
>in personas, doing things they might not normally do),
Thank you for the definition of what Pennsic is... I was wondering why
everyone was going around calling me "Lord" and stuff, a-hyuk. (Is there an
emote for giving someone the "bird"?)
>the assumption
>should be that you will NOT be photographed and anything to the contrary
>should be asked for. You want to take pictures of your friends and get
>others randomly in the background, fine. But you want to take pictures of
>a specific person without their permission, that's definitely not fine.
You still have not defined why it is not fine. Because you don't like it?
Is that the only reason you have?
>Besides, many parties like Men Without Pants were specifically disallowing
>photography and yet the camera-happy types were taking pictures anyway!
That seems to be an issue of "Not allowed here" but that doesn't mean it is
inherently wrong everywhere else. If the city park has "Don't walk on the
grass" signs which are routinely ignored, is it not permissible to walk on
the grass anywhere? Of course not. Your "Men without Pants" reason isn't
supporting your "argument". That is just an attempt to "Appeal to
Majority", though in this case it is Appeal to Minority.
>It's rude and it doesn't belong.
Again, this is simply a matter of opinion, limited only to you. There was
never a shortage of dancers at any of the parties that I attended.
>The assumption shouldn't be: I'm going
>to a party at Pennsic so I should expect to be photographed.
Again, why?
>The
>assumption should be: I'm bringing a camera to a party at Pennsic so I
>should expect to ask strangers before taking their picture.
Ditto above...
>
>The burden of ettiquette is on the one bringing the modern camera to a
>period event. Period.
How about a modern doumbeck to a period event, or modern glasses to a
period event, or... (I'll see your 'Burden of Proof' with 'Slippery Slope')
Is it wrong to film the bridge battle? Or a tournament? Or Great Court?
These all happen at that thing you call Pennsic, too.
>
>2) I don't have a fear of being photographed. I rather enjoy it.
You didn't do what you wanted to (dance) because of the consequences. The
thought of appearing on some website or as fantasy fodder for "drunken
friends" kept you from doing something that you wanted. Is that not fear?
Sounds like a social phobia to me.
>Provided I know the person taking the pictures or at least the 1purpose of
>the pictures and have a say on when they get taken.
Well, okay.
>I do wish people
>would ask first or just not do it.
Do you really want however many people that are photographing coming up to
you and constantly interrupt your dancing, asking permission to catch a few
lightrays that has inadvertantly bounced off you? How many until it
becomes annoying?
>It's common courtesy, which used to go
>hand in hand with chivalry.......
I will leave Dennis to comment on this one, since this is one of his
favorite things to discuss.
I have to say that I am amazed that my two questions evoked such a
response.
-C
Helen Nauert
> >> Do you really think that people should have to ask everyone's permission
> >> to photograph or videotape when they are at a party?
Since you ask, yes, I do.....party or not. I was accosted by multiple
camera-wielding persons several days at Pennsic, usually while standing
in line at Food Court or walking to and from camp. Most were polite,
asking if they could take a photo, some were quite rude (snapping first
and asking second is NOT polite, even if it's a digital and can be
erased).
I've apparently managed to make two sets of garb people want photos of.
I hadn't worn these at home in a couple years. I used not to object,
until I found the photo posted on a "Hideous Garb Site" after being
assured by the lady that the photo would only be used for her personal
research. I'd even forwarded her my documentation for the piece.
Imagine my surprise at having multiple accquaintances forward me the
"garb site".
IMO, cameras/video/most recorded music are an annoyance at SCA events to
start with. I usually turn down all requests for photos from persons I
don't know now, and if I observe a "stealth photographer" aimed in my
direction, I'll make some attempt to obscure myself in the shot. If you
really want a photo for *research* purposes, you'll agree to handing
your camera over to a friend of mine who will take a photo for you of
the *dress* without my face in it. You'll also want the documentation
for it.
Otherwise, please take your memories home in your imagination....it's
period.
Celestia della Chaira
Harold Feld
I'll add two things.
1) It seems to me Bianca has a perfect right not to dance if she
doesn't feel comfortable doing it for the camera. That's a personal
choice.
2) I share the feeling that flash photography at events is a bad idea.
I bitterly recented the endless flashes at the burning of the viking
longship on Saturday night. As an initial matter, most of the flashes
were utterly useless, since the ship was burning out on the lake at
least 150 ft away and the average flash does not work for distances
above ten feet. More importantly, it kept me (and others around me,
who also complained) from ever really appreciating the beauty of the
event or even seeing it properly. The literally non-stop flashes had
a blinding effect and unutterably altered the feeling from something
magical to a tourist attraction.
It also demonstrates the problem that every individual's *one* flash
builds up very quickly.
I recognize that making a visual record of the SCA is a valuable goal,
and that people wish to preserve their memories, but some balance
needs to be reached. In at least a couple of kingdoms, kingdom law
prohibits flash photography at events. This seems to me a good rule
as a default, with perhaps announcing in advance that there will be
photo ops for momentous events.
Mar Yaakov
Lyle H. Gray
subject of this thread?]
On 22 Aug 2001 17:42:44 GMT, curb...@hotmail.com (Curt Halbrook)
wrote:
>I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. I have been photographed at
>night while juggling and didn't miss a ball. The lack of flaming belly
>dancers would seem to somewhat diminish the "danger" of flash photography.
I've been in the company of several dancers at night at Pennsic. The
area where we were dancing (btw, this was not ME dancing) was lit
primarily by firelight, torches and campfires.
When several flash cameras were used to take pictures of us, one of
our dancers collapsed almost immediately with a blinding headache
(read: Where's the nearest chirurgeon?). He came within two inches
of falling on a rebar tentstake that was nearby. It turns out that he
was susceptible to migraine headaches, and bright flashes were one of
the triggers.
An unusual circumstance, perhaps, but one that could have been avoided
if the photographers had asked first.
Stefan Turcitul de la Dragasani
<erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> > that not all music is improved with the addition of drmming--even
> > excellent drumming, and any where in the vicinity of unconnected
> > drumming, most other music rather suffers.
>
> Drum and harp? Not a good combo. Drums anywhere halfway nearby can wipe
> out singing at Bardic Circles. Been there...
Improperly played drums, yes. A good drummer can control his playing to
the point where the actual beat is no louder than a harp our oud being
played. The problem is that in many circles, you'll get 20 drummers all
pounding away with very little regard to anyone else around them.
-- Istvan
http://www.chapelperilous.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I traveled to the end of the rainbow
As Dame Fortune did intend,
Murphy would be there to tell me
The pot's at the other end.
-- Bert Whitney
Powers
>>occurred the drummers were in plain sight of the other musicians.
>>Thomas
>
>I can only assume from this that there were some drummers playing who
>do not have the common decency to play with the musicians. I have, and
>do, play a Boudrahn and enjoy the music but I have had session people
>say directly to me that the only good way for a drummer to play is
>with a Stanley Knife...... They have always apologised after the
>session though *smile*
>
>Is this what we are talking about?
The one that particularly rankles was when there were about 20 people
listening to a talented friend of mine playing, (I've listened to him play 6
hours straight by memory alone!), he was the founder of the shire I first
joined 23 years ago and I only get to see him at Pennsic these days. A
wandering group of drummers moved in and hijacked the circle to bad drumming
and belly dancing, a loud raucous crowd moved in and the magic was gone for
the night.
Thomas
>If so then I wish that people would understand that drummers augment
>music and assist. A good drummer *can* carry the beat but should never
>*run* the beat to the exclusion of the music...
Assisting a person who has not requested assistance is in questionable taste
try "assisting" a conductor sometime...I have no quarrel with drumming as a
*part* of entertainment I just want the possibility of other *types* of
entertainment without drumming barging in. Perhaps the consideration that
people have differing tastes and that *your* fun might not be fun for others.
(I would love to have each camp mandated to be full of forges and spinning
wheels so all could "enjoy" the war as we do; but some nagging little voice
keeps saying that some folk like standing in the sun in armour hitting each
other with sticks any my code says that they should be allowed to follow their
own weird...)
I camp where the middle eastern A&S tent is the next tent up from mine with
no problems. In fact waking up to the ME Dance class is a favorite memory of
mine. There is a time and place for most things.
Thomas
>Sorry all but a bit of a soap-box of mine. Most good musicians
>appreciate good drummers (it is an instrument after all!). Most good
>drummers hate bad drummers as we all have to put up with the fall-out
>that this generates.
>
>Take care all
>
>
>David D.
>The Mediaeval Combat Society
>The Historical Reenactment Web Site
>http://www.montacute.net/histrenact/welcome.htm
Nicole
Curt Halbrook wrote:
> >1) Frankly, yes. Honestly, I think they shouldn't be doing any of that in
> >the first place, let alone have to ask permission first. Firstly,
> >flashbulbs are dangerous at night if you're dancing around a campfire and
> >are suddenly instantly blinded.
>
> I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. I have been photographed at
> night while juggling and didn't miss a ball. The lack of flaming belly
> dancers would seem to somewhat diminish the "danger" of flash photography.
>
Just because the dancers make sure to stay in one place after they're blinded
and thus don't end up flaming doesn't mean that they weren't blinded. I said
it was dangerous and it is. Just because you're an excellent juggler doesn't
mean a dancer can't stumble whilst temporarily blinded, two separate issues.
Now let me answer one of your later points here because it's an important
one...
> >I do wish people
> >would ask first or just not do it.
>
> Do you really want however many people that are photographing coming up to
> you and constantly interrupt your dancing, asking permission to catch a few
> lightrays that has inadvertantly bounced off you? How many until it
> becomes annoying?
YES! I REALLY REALLY REALLY DO! As for annoying, it's far more annoying to
have someone take a picture of you without asking your permission first! If
people asking for permission means interupting my dancing, that's fine cause it
doesn't spoil the mood. Having someone get close and launch a flashbulb in
your yeye when you don't know them, don't know what they're doing with that
picture, now THAT is annoying and has already become annoying.
> >Secondly, what's wrong with asking someone's
> >permission before photographing them???
>
> Nothing is wrong. I never said that. I said "Why should they have to?"
> That in no way implies that it is wrong to. But you didn't answer my
> question.
>
Why should they "have to" implies that it's generally acceptable not to ask. I
was merely asking a question of you back, not ignoring your question. I did
answer your question, fairly well I thought. Folks should have to ask because
it's polite and these folks are the ones with the cameras, the ones who want to
have pictures taken. Therefore it's up to them to ask strangers before taking
pictures of them. This is common courtesy and that it my answer. If you don't
find courtesy an acceptable answer, I don't know how to discuss this further
with you.
> >Seeing as
> >these are parties at PENNSIC (read: mostly period event where people are
> >in personas, doing things they might not normally do),
>
> Thank you for the definition of what Pennsic is... I was wondering why
> everyone was going around calling me "Lord" and stuff, a-hyuk. (Is there an
> emote for giving someone the "bird"?)
>
My point, if you'd hold on the sarcasm for a second, was that one shouldn't
expect to have photographs taken of them at a period event, at least without
permission being asked. If I were dancing at a Ren Faire, I'd expect
photographs because there's no expectation of chivalry and manners. At an SCA
event, standards are higher.
> You still have not defined why it is not fine. Because you don't like it?
> Is that the only reason you have?
>
Something called Privacy used to exist in this world. Where one could go to an
SCA event and adopt a persona such that there was some semblance of anonymity
to the real world. We're not discussing taking pictures of someone standing
there juggling, something they wouldn't mind having half the world, SCA or not,
seeing. I was discussing taking pictures of a woman dancing, something very
expressive and potentially erotic. Something that is private. If she chooses
to share it with the people at the party that evening, that's great. Just
because she chooses to dance then doesn't mean she chooses to share that with
the internet, the buddies back home, or that person's personal photo
collection! If I wanted to show the world images of me dancing, they'd be on
my webpage. But my dancing is private. I don't mind doing it for Scadians and
at certain places. I do mind it being photographed for outsiders, etc. And I
consider a person's right to privacy a very important reason. Therefore, it's
much easier for the ones taking photos to ask than it is for the ones having
been photographed to have recourse after the fact.
> >Besides, many parties like Men Without Pants were specifically disallowing
> >photography and yet the camera-happy types were taking pictures anyway!
>
> That seems to be an issue of "Not allowed here" but that doesn't mean it is
> inherently wrong everywhere else. If the city park has "Don't walk on the
> grass" signs which are routinely ignored, is it not permissible to walk on
> the grass anywhere? Of course not. Your "Men without Pants" reason isn't
> supporting your "argument". That is just an attempt to "Appeal to
> Majority", though in this case it is Appeal to Minority.
>
Once again you missed my point. "Besides" generally indicates an aside, not a
supporting argument. And my aside was to point out that the picture-taking
types had already established themselves as impolite by directly going against
the rules of a party. So clearly it's logical that they're impolite beyond
that by not asking people's permission before photographing them.
>
> >It's rude and it doesn't belong.
>
> Again, this is simply a matter of opinion, limited only to you. There was
> never a shortage of dancers at any of the parties that I attended.
Excuse me BUT... your original posting said....
> I can't tell you how many times we tried to get
> women that were dressed in "belly dancer" (and I say that with the
> _loosest_ of definitions; trim on a bra does not a belly dancer costume
> make) to dance with us!
>
So if you were trying to get them to dance with you, that meant there was some
reason they weren't dancing. I gave a possible reason that people, or at least
myself, didn't dance. And as for the parties I saw, which were numerous,
there were a lot less people actually dancing out there than the past Pennsics
I've been to.
> >The
> >assumption should be: I'm bringing a camera to a party at Pennsic so I
> >should expect to ask strangers before taking their picture.
>
> Ditto above...
>
Because it's polite. Because I honestly believe that a person's right to
privacy outweighs your right to have a scrapbook full of photos of strangers.
If you don't consider it polite, then that's your problem.
> How about a modern doumbeck to a period event, or modern glasses to a
> period event, or... (I'll see your 'Burden of Proof' with 'Slippery Slope')
> Is it wrong to film the bridge battle? Or a tournament? Or Great Court?
> These all happen at that thing you call Pennsic, too.
>
Do what you want with court, battles, etc. The particular instance I brought
up was a woman doing middle eastern dancing, something the mundane world sees
as erotic and exotic. At least for me as a woman, there is quite a difference
between a fighter in armor being photoed during the day and a scantily clad
dancer being photoed at night whilst doing a shimmy of her bust.
> You didn't do what you wanted to (dance) because of the consequences. The
> thought of appearing on some website or as fantasy fodder for "drunken
> friends" kept you from doing something that you wanted. Is that not fear?
> Sounds like a social phobia to me.
>
Again, it's not fear. It's a reality. I've seen it happen and had it happen.
And I did dance, just not where the cameras were. My objection is that the
consequences exist as where they did not several years ago. As for social
phobia and skills, I'm not the one trying to figure out how to emote a bird...
Oh, and as for the fear of videotaping keeping me from doing other things I
enjoy? No, it doesn't. But ME dancing is about the most erotic thing I do in
public so yes, videoing that keeps me from doing it.
-Bianca
Greg and Dianne Stucki
<ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>Actually, in my camp (Yama Kaminari, the folks with the taiko ensemble)
>there was no drumming after ten. What was more "annoying" was the
>exceedingly enthusiastic whoopie-making several nights out of the war in
>the next tent in the next camp (separated from mine by six inches of
>ground, a camp curtain, and six more inches of ground). I thought about
>clapping a couple of times when it was all over...
>
>Folks, just keep in mind; canvas is NOT a good insulator against traveling
>sound.
>
>
>Effingham
>
My sister was once plagued with an equally enthusiastic couple living
in the apartment above hers, who also enjoyed leaving their window
open at night. One night, when they finished, she stood on her bed and
applauded long and loud.
They kept their window closed afterwards, and toned down their
activity somewhat.
Alisone
Ted Eisenstein
> My sister was once plagued with an equally enthusiastic couple living
> in the apartment above hers, who also enjoyed leaving their window
> open at night. One night, when they finished, she stood on her bed and
> applauded long and loud.
>
> They kept their window closed afterwards, and toned down their
> activity somewhat.
Pennsic Story:
Two people were enjoying themselves inside a tent; the woman was most
vocally appreciative of the lord's attentions, to the point where a
crowd gathered around the tent. When the woman's delighted screams were
finished, the crowd applauded. And then the tent flaps parted, the
gentleman involved came out, stark naked, smiled, bowed to the audience,
and went back inside. . .
If it isn't true, it should be.
Alban
Ted Eisenstein
> party that has a "Wet Chemise Party" or a "Scantily Clad Contest" (aside:
> My wife was in that one at Pandora's Box. She was the first contestant,
> and should have won, too.)
obviously non-period. I'd tend to be a lot more careful about flash photos
at a good belly-dancing gathering than at a wet-chemise contest because the
former may be in period, but the latter is most likely wildly not so.
>> Secondly, what's wrong with asking someone's
>> permission before photographing them???
> Nothing is wrong. I never said that. I said "Why should they have to?"
> That in no way implies that it is wrong to. But you didn't answer my
> question.
Why should they have to? Because it's the polite thing to do?
Alban
Heather Rose Jones
>
> Not a SCAdian - but a player in other UK groups and a bard - so had to join
> in:
>
> Harp and drum can go well together if both know what each other are doing.
> My husband and I certainly drum and harp as a duo, and it works well as both
> of us know the limitations of the other. But any instrument played badly
> can be incredibly irritating. The onus is on those with loud instruments to
> play them better as they are more audible.
In my experience, the greatest problem doesn't tend to be those
situations in which the drummers are trying to play in ensemble with
other instruments, but rather those situations where the drummers and
the other instruments are each trying to do their own thing (in separate
encampments, for example). There are some human activities that, by
their nature, are more capable of imposing themselves unwillingly on
innocent bystanders. If I sit down to play a harp, even if I play it
_really_ badly, the number of listeners who will be forced to listen is
intrinsically limited. If I sit down to play a drum, even if I play it
really well, the number of of listeners who will be forced to listen,
like it or not, is considerably larger.
One would hope that people who participate in "large-impact" activities
would take care to try to minimize the extent to which they force others
to share those activities, but then again, a certain number of people
(not all by any means) are specifically drawn to "large-impact"
activities specifically because they _like_ the feeling of power that it
gives them to force others to experience the things they like to do.
It's the equivalent of the guy who walks down the street with a boombox
blaring on this shoulder. _He_ could get the same experience by the use
of earphones, but part of his enjoyment is in forcing the rest of the
world to dance to his personal sound-track.
As I say, not all drummers by any means have this as a motivation, but
it only takes a few.
Tangwystyl
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
WelshWmn3
>Do you really think that people should have to ask everyone's permission to
>photograph or videotape when they are at a party?
Actually, as taking a picture is invasive, and as some people don't like being
photographed, I'd say yes, people should have to ask the intended target of the
film's permission before taking a picture.
After all, it's only curteous. Some people (like myself) hate having their
picture taken at all. Some people (such as the Lady who would not dance
because of camera's and video cam's at the parties) only want to dance for the
enjoyment of those present, and not for the whole world.
What is so wrong about asking somebody if you could film them or take their
picture while they are dancing?
Branwyn,
who was very upset when she saw a woman take her picture through the window
when she was working the MDA Auction booth.
WelshWmn3
>You still have not defined why it is not fine. Because you don't like it?
>Is that the only reason you have?
If she objects to having her picture taken by strangers, that is all the reason
she needs.
She *did* give you a reason. It's called "common courtesy". Unfortunately,
"common courtesy", like "common sense", isn't so common in these days. (Not
even in the SCA, more's the pity.)
Branwyn
thomas
Nicole <icyc...@bestweb.net> wrote in article
<3B8423B3...@bestweb.net>...
<Snip>
Y'know, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Rialto, but I'd have to
guess that once you make the concious, willful decision to dance / perform
in public, be it at an SCA event or on the street corner, privacy is no
longer an issue. You have elected to make a public spetacle of yourself.
Also, to jump to the immediate conclusion that any and all photographers
are immediately *pornographers* or at least wannabes is rather judgemental,
if not prejudicial.
> Because it's polite. Because I honestly believe that a person's right to
> privacy outweighs your right to have a scrapbook full of photos of
strangers.
> If you don't consider it polite, then that's your problem.
I hope I am readign this wrong, but is sounds to me as if you are saying:
"Because I do not like it, then it is objectively wrong, and therefor
should be forbidden and backed up with the weight of law".
God in Heaven, I hope I am wrong. There is enough of that nitwittery in the
mundane world without carrying it over into the SCA.
> Do what you want with court, battles, etc. The particular instance I
brought
> up was a woman doing middle eastern dancing, something the mundane world
sees
> as erotic and exotic. At least for me as a woman, there is quite a
difference
> between a fighter in armor being photoed during the day and a scantily
clad
> dancer being photoed at night whilst doing a shimmy of her bust.
> Oh, and as for the fear of videotaping keeping me from doing other things
I
> enjoy? No, it doesn't. But ME dancing is about the most erotic thing I
do in
> public so yes, videoing that keeps me from doing it.
Here again, this sounds like I don't like it so it should be illegal.
What about this: At the outset of your performance simply make the *POLITE*
request that no photographs or video be taken of *YOUR* performance. If you
like explain your reasons, and leave it at that. If someone then ignores
your request, you would be well within your rights to complain to whomever.
As it stands now, and I am sorry about the way this sounds, you are coming
off like some ego-centric movie star who punches out the paparzzi at every
turn, or some self-righteous special interest group wanting to condemn,
under the force of law the target of the week. As I have already said,
*you* don't like it, so it should be forbidden for *everyone*. Last I
heard, that was called tyrannical autocracy. (Or modern mundane USA
politics, take your choice.)
As a personal note, aside from the odd country dance with my lady, I do not
dance. Most expecially I do not engage in middle-eastern "belly/cabaret"
style dancing. (God knows I no longer have the figure for it). I do however
play with a folk music band and have been photographed at night. The camera
was pointed straight at me, and the flash was in my eyes, but I didn't trip
into the fire, nor impale myself on the nearest piece of re-bar. Then
again. maybe I'm just lucky.
So, I guess it comes down to this, take my suggestion and ask that there be
no photos taken during your performance, or get over it.
Morgan
thomas
WelshWmn3 <wels...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20010822221907...@mb-fp.aol.com>...
> curb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >You still have not defined why it is not fine. Because you don't like
it?
> >Is that the only reason you have?
>
> If she objects to having her picture taken by strangers, that is all the
reason
> she needs.
I will grant you that point. However, unless the vast majority of the
Society has suddenly become psychic, the photographers do not know of this
particular quirk. My suggestion stands: Ask *BEFOREHAND* that no photos be
taken. Then, and only then will the onus fall upon the photographer.
> She *did* give you a reason. It's called "common courtesy".
Unfortunately,
> "common courtesy", like "common sense", isn't so common in these days.
(Not
> even in the SCA, more's the pity.)
Common courtesy... Hmmm... I will agree that flash photography can be
intrusive, especially at night. But, I will repeat my earlier statement
that IMO, by making the concious, willful decision to dance in what she
admits is a sensual, possibly erotic manner, she has made the concious,
willful decision to put herself on public display. So, barring mental
telepathy, or a public verbal request, how is the photographer to know of
her desire not to be photographed.
Also, while we are on the subject of courtesy, how courteous is it to
assume, that any male who photographs her performance is automatically a
pornographer or a wannabe pornographer?
I will grant you however that there is no longer any such thing as "common"
sense.
Morgan
thomas
WelshWmn3 <wels...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20010822221043...@mb-fp.aol.com>...
> Curt Halbrook wrote:
>
> What is so wrong about asking somebody if you could film them or take
their
> picture while they are dancing?
Not a thing. Though as a performer myself, I would hope that someone would
not interrupt my performace to make the request. Then again, I haven't got
a problem with beign photographed while performing. In fact, I tend to play
up to the camera. Guess I'm a natural show-off. :-)
Likewise, what is wrong with the performer asking that the performance
*not* be photographed *BEFORE* she begins performing, if having her picture
taken is such a bugaboo for her?
I still insist that the burden here is upon the performer to make her
preference clear to the audience. SCAdians ARE NOT psychics.
Morgan
thomas
Powers <w...@nds10758.cb.lucent.com> wrote in article
<9lu1g5$b...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com>...
> >What can we do to encourage other instruments?
>
> I've often sat enjoying someone playing and or singing at Pennsic only
> to have a doombec start up, attract others, and go on to drown out or
> drive off the other musicians who were already entertaining people in
> the area.
>
> Perhaps we should encourage basic courtesy as a method of encouraging
> other instruments?
I've been the victim of the doumbek plague on more than one occasion. I
have one mild, one more severe and one radical antidote.
The first is a politely worded request to respect the other performers. And
before anyone launches on me regarding my statemens on another associated
thread. This ain't the same thing. You don't have to be psychic to
understand that starting to hammer out a mid-eastern dance rythym in the
middle of a vocal performance is going to annoy the singer(s).
The second is a more strongly framed request, soemthign on the order of
"Has your drum made you so deaf that you canot hear the person whose song
you are tromping all over?"
The third, and as yet unemployed, though I have come close (I only live a
couple hours from Coopers so one day I may get so cheesed off that I go
ahead and pull out the heavy artillery). It comes in the form of my Fender
Stratocaster and a pignose amp. Doumbek? What doumbek? I can't hear any
doumbek? (Though I may make one nod to semi-periodness and bring my Ovation
rather than my Strat. At least the round back makes it sorta-kinda look
like a lute. :-) )
Morgan
thomas
David Debono <david....@montacute.net> wrote in article
<16f5ot8deq5m82mtf...@4ax.com>...
>
> I can only assume from this that there were some drummers playing who
> do not have the common decency to play with the musicians. I have, and
> do, play a Boudrahn and enjoy the music but I have had session people
> say directly to me that the only good way for a drummer to play is
> with a Stanley Knife...... They have always apologised after the
> session though *smile*
That is my general complaint regarding doumbeks. I've had one of them
launch into that bloody-damn dum tekatek right in the middle of a rather
soft and emotion-filled song I wrote for my lady. I'm not sure who wanted
to strangle the jackass more, me, her, or my senior man-at-arms.
OTOH, a friend of mine cannnot play the bodhran to save his life, but he
can play the doumbek. We had a ball one evening at a semi-mundane
bonfire/event doing Irish, Scots and SCA "filks" on guitar and doumbek.
Then I put down my guitar, picked up my bodhran and tried to keep up with
him and a few others as they played for a couple of mid-eastern dancers.
My general gripe is more with the drummer than the drum, but the ease with
which one can acquire the basics of the doumbek, as well as the apparent
hope that one may attract scantily clad women to dance to the doumbek seems
(to my observation anyhow) to attract some of the newer and er ... courtesy
challenged members.
Morgan
Martin Hungerford
I feel your pain. After being drowned out for years by
guitarist/Singers I finaly reaslised what to do. You can too. Send me vast
quantities of money and I might send you you own set of bagpipes
Grin
Iago
"thomas" <tgr...@sgielusive.net> wrote in message
news:01c12a34$4b628ba0$0387a6d1@hpcustomer...
>
>
> here. It happens quite a bit at local events as well as at Pennisc. As a
> guitar player and singer, I have learned that there is no vocalist who can
> out-volume or out-last a doumbek. This phenomenon has led to the coining
of
> the phrase: "Doumbeks come in four sizes; bare-foot, tennis shoe, combat
> boot, and riding boot, with spur. The footgear necessary to kick the heads
> in on the d--n things."
> Though the comment would be more appropriately aimed at the pea-brain
> holdign the doumbek. Like I said it isn't the drum, it's the drummer.
>
> Morgan
Charlene Charette
> Mairi (who long ago figured out that it's not the doumbeks in general she can't
> listen to, it's the really bad doumbek players!)
Exactly. I usually try to camp as far away from drums as possible
(well, Gulf Wars; never been to Pennsic). One year there was a camp of
3? 4? drummers next to us and I figured "there goes all hope of sleeping
this year." Turns out they were *really* good and I enjoyed listening
to them and even managed to drift off to sleep.
--Perronnelle
--
Is the kidney a bean-shaped organ, or is the bean a kidney-shaped
legume? -- George Carlin
=====
Free Book Searches (out-of-print, hard-to-find, foreign, used, new) -
mailto:find...@flash.net
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>Likewise, what is wrong with the performer asking that the performance
>*not* be photographed *BEFORE* she begins performing, if having her picture
>taken is such a bugaboo for her?
>I still insist that the burden here is upon the performer to make her
>preference clear to the audience. SCAdians ARE NOT psychics.
Well, if you're in a situation where you don't know if your
behaviour would be acceptable, how about asking?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Brian L. Rygg/Brendan Pilgrim
> However, unless the vast majority of the
> Society has suddenly become psychic, the photographers do not
> know of this particular quirk. My suggestion stands: Ask
> *BEFOREHAND* that no photos be taken. Then, and only then
> will the onus fall upon the photographer.
The photographers do have another recourse than mental telepathy. It's
called asking permission.
> Common courtesy... Hmmm... I will agree that flash photography can be
> intrusive, especially at night. But, I will repeat my earlier statement
> that IMO, by making the concious, willful decision to dance in what she
> admits is a sensual, possibly erotic manner, she has made the concious,
> willful decision to put herself on public display.
The SCA -- even at Pennsic -- is not the same thing as the "street
corner" example you used earlier. SCA events are, in the main, private
parties. Some of them are *BIG* private parties, but private parties
nonetheless.
> So, barring mental telepathy, or a public verbal request, how is the
> photographer to know of her desire not to be photographed. Also,
> while we are on the subject of courtesy, how courteous is it to
> assume, that any male who photographs her performance is
> automatically a pornographer or a wannabe pornographer?
This is the second time you've referred to such assumption/conclusion,
but the lady never said such a thing.
> I will grant you however that there is no longer any such thing as
> "common" sense.
No argument there.
Your honours in dutie.
Brendan Pilgrim
Cognitio et Cogitatio Vitae Pennas Dant
Curt Halbrook
<20010822221043...@mb-fp.aol.com>:
Why is having a picture being taken of you invasive? Why, specifically, were
you upset when someone took your picture?
-C
thomas
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@shuswap.net> wrote in article
<3b84930c...@news.shuswap.net>...
> "thomas" <tgr...@sgielusive.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Likewise, what is wrong with the performer asking that the performance
> >*not* be photographed *BEFORE* she begins performing, if having her
picture
> >taken is such a bugaboo for her?
> >I still insist that the burden here is upon the performer to make her
> >preference clear to the audience. SCAdians ARE NOT psychics.
>
> Well, if you're in a situation where you don't know if your
> behaviour would be acceptable, how about asking?
I thought I said that. If I did not, apologies.
Yes, if you aren't familiar as to the correct behavior, ask. Most people
won't bite your head off - though I may nibble a little, if the questioner
and the situation warrants it ;-)
Morgan
thomas
Brian L. Rygg/Brendan Pilgrim <ryg...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<EQ1h7.41$Bt4....@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
<Snip>
> The photographers do have another recourse than mental telepathy.
It's
> called asking permission.
I agree, but I still hold to my original statement. If it is such a big
deal to her personally, she should make the request for no photography.
> > Common courtesy... Hmmm... I will agree that flash photography can be
> > intrusive, especially at night. But, I will repeat my earlier statement
> > that IMO, by making the concious, willful decision to dance in what she
> > admits is a sensual, possibly erotic manner, she has made the concious,
> > willful decision to put herself on public display.
>
> The SCA -- even at Pennsic -- is not the same thing as the "street
> corner" example you used earlier. SCA events are, in the main, private
> parties. Some of them are *BIG* private parties, but private parties
> nonetheless.
perhaps not exactly the same thing, but I think the analogy holds. You have
a significant cross section of the public with which to deal even if it is
in microcosm.
> > So, barring mental telepathy, or a public verbal request, how is the
> > photographer to know of her desire not to be photographed. Also,
> > while we are on the subject of courtesy, how courteous is it to
> > assume, that any male who photographs her performance is
> > automatically a pornographer or a wannabe pornographer?
>
> This is the second time you've referred to such
assumption/conclusion,
> but the lady never said such a thing.
Not outright, perhaps, but the implication is there in that she stated her
belief that persons taking pictures of her were doing so, that his
"drunken, mundane buddies" (or some similar statement) could drool over the
pictures. I find this automatic assumption to be highly offensive - rather
like Patricia Ireland's assurance that all heterosexual sex is rape, even
if it is consensual, thus implying that all men are rapists.
Could it be that the photographer found her to be attractive in an asthetic
way, or perhaps he wanted to capture her performance as part of his Pennsic
memory? That is why I used to take Pennsic photos, because memories fade,
and the pictures help bring them back to life.
Automatically making the asumption of low intent is offensive.
Morgan
Elizabeth M. Levin
: WelshWmn3 <wels...@aol.com> wrote in article
: <20010822221907...@mb-fp.aol.com>...
: >
: > If she objects to having her picture taken by strangers, that is all the
: reason
: > she needs.
: I will grant you that point. However, unless the vast majority of the
: Society has suddenly become psychic, the photographers do not know of this
: particular quirk. My suggestion stands: Ask *BEFOREHAND* that no photos be
: taken. Then, and only then will the onus fall upon the photographer.
Nope. SOP should be asking permission of a subject to be photographed
first. If you want to publish it (this includes a webpage) you want a
release form signed. As for the suggestion that this is a public venue, I
return that it most explicitly is _NOT_. This is a private party- a large
private party, but private nonetheless.
I perform as a storyteller, and would prefer that a) people not interrupt
that performance, particularly with something so invasively non-period as
a flashbulb and b) I not have to go out of persona to explain to rude
people that they are being rude.
: > She *did* give you a reason. It's called "common courtesy".
: Unfortunately,
: > "common courtesy", like "common sense", isn't so common in these days.
: (Not
: > even in the SCA, more's the pity.)
: Common courtesy... Hmmm... I will agree that flash photography can be
: intrusive, especially at night. But, I will repeat my earlier statement
: that IMO, by making the concious, willful decision to dance in what she
: admits is a sensual, possibly erotic manner, she has made the concious,
: willful decision to put herself on public display. So, barring mental
: telepathy, or a public verbal request, how is the photographer to know of
: her desire not to be photographed.
By remembering that the default is not to be photographed without prior
consent. If you want to photograph dancers, you find likely subjects and
ASK. Also, this is not precisely public- nor does she agree by dancing to
license her image to just anybody- this means you, too. She does _not_
agree to have her image published without her consent.
btw- IANAL, but have heard that you _can_ be sued for this kind of thing.
My sister is a photographer, and has gotten permission at publicly
accessible swing dances to take pictures, and she has the subjects sign
releases afterwards.
: Also, while we are on the subject of courtesy, how courteous is it to
: assume, that any male who photographs her performance is automatically a
: pornographer or a wannabe pornographer?
Well, let's see... He's taking her image without her consent, potentially
publishing without her consent. Pornographer or no, she has an interest in
preventing that from happening. If you want a picture, you need to
convince the subject that allowing you to take that image is something
desirable.
Would you take the image of an Amish, Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim woman
walking down the street, even though she might have religious objections?
She presented herself on a public street, so she must have expected to be
photographed, by your logic. What if she attended a county fair, or went
to a private party? You need to back up your assertion that people lose
all right to privacy by appearing in a public venue.
Elizabeth Levin. (Devora bat Shimshon has seen miniatures, but knows that
many religious people object to them.)
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
any and all unsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Elizabeth M. Levin
: WelshWmn3 <wels...@aol.com> wrote in article
: <20010822221043...@mb-fp.aol.com>...
: >
: > What is so wrong about asking somebody if you could film them or take
: their
: > picture while they are dancing?
: Not a thing. Though as a performer myself, I would hope that someone would
: not interrupt my performace to make the request. Then again, I haven't got
: a problem with beign photographed while performing. In fact, I tend to play
: up to the camera. Guess I'm a natural show-off. :-)
Fine. Dandy for you. However, cameras are intrusive, especially in a
period setting, and photographers should keep that in mind, just as
fledgling drummers should keep in mind that just because it's midnight,
some fusspot is going to want sleep.
: Likewise, what is wrong with the performer asking that the performance
: *not* be photographed *BEFORE* she begins performing, if having her picture
: taken is such a bugaboo for her?
Perhaps she objects to having to break persona. Perhaps the rules of the
party already cover it, and these rude people aren't listening to their
hosts so they likely won't listen to her either.
: I still insist that the burden here is upon the performer to make her
: preference clear to the audience. SCAdians ARE NOT psychics.
No. The plain and simple fact is that you want to have someone act as a
subject for you. Your burden is to ASK. No one is asking you to be a
psychic. They're asking you to show the courtesy of respecting everyone
else's privacy. If you don't like interrupting the performance, ask
_ahead_ of time of as many dancers as you can, thus (hopefully) ensuring a
few who will agree. I have had people ask to photograph me, and have
agreed to it. I will sometimes even sign a subject's release form,
depending on what's going on. I'm somewhat more likely to agree to a
release form if I get a copy of the picture.
Elizabeth Levin (Devora bat Shimshon has never had her portrait painted)
Elizabeth M. Levin
: Gene Wirchenko <ge...@shuswap.net> wrote in article
No. You said that the person on the receiving end must prevent the
photographer from rudely taking an image without permission. This is
backward- the photographer, knowing that not everyone likes to have their
picture taken, ASKS.
Elizabeth Levin.
Ted Eisenstein
>> I still insist that the burden here is upon the performer to make her
>> preference clear to the audience. SCAdians ARE NOT psychics.
>
> Well, if you're in a situation where you don't know if your
> behaviour would be acceptable, how about asking?
If the prospective photographer arrives after the person
dancing has requested no photos be taken, it would be somewhat
difficult for him to have heard the request. And I really can't
see stopping the dance to ask.
Alban
Ted Eisenstein
> Why is having a picture being taken of you invasive? Why, specifically, were
> you upset when someone took your picture?
Why does it matter why she doesn't want photos taken? No means no.
Alban
Elizabeth M. Levin
: >> I still insist that the burden here is upon the performer to make her
This is why the default is no pictures. It is the duty of the person
bringing in the photographic equipment to ensure that it is permissible to
take pictures. If the party rules say "no", if the subject says "no",
whatever, it's no pictures for the photographer.
margali
DOESN"T mean that I dance. As a matter of fact, unless I am an
*ahem* paid entertainer, it would be a really inappropriate thing
to do - appear in public dancing? For 'proper' women, dancing was
done in the home, in with your female family and friends and for
one's spouse. Dancing in public would imply that [in the right
circumstances for certain types of dancing] i was of negotiable
virtue.
Don't bother asking me to dance for you - it is just not done by
me in persona, and out of persona I dance only for my husband.
margali
and I really doubt that I am the only non-dancing middle
easterner around either! ;-)
--
~~~~~
The Quote Starts Here:
Elaine Ragland
and Found? Through a last-minute packing snafu, my lord's shield was left
on the ground and later delivered to Lost and Found. I'd like to make
arrangements, if possible, for the shield to be shipped to its proper
owner.
Many thanks.
Elaine Ragland
aka Melanie de la Tour
Baronessa Ilaria
Mistress Nan Astrid of York, who has handled lost & found for many years. Her
email is: miss...@juno.com
Nicole
thomas wrote:
> Y'know, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Rialto, but I'd have to
> guess that once you make the concious, willful decision to dance / perform
> in public, be it at an SCA event or on the street corner, privacy is no
> longer an issue. You have elected to make a public spetacle of yourself.
> Also, to jump to the immediate conclusion that any and all photographers
> are immediately *pornographers* or at least wannabes is rather judgemental,
> if not prejudicial.
SCA events are not public events. You pay money to get in, you agree to follow
specific rules that aren't applicable outside of the event (for example, no
pets). SCA events are private parties and events. Will I dance at a friend's
private party? Yes. Will I dance on a street corner? No. Not the same
thing. By dancing at SCA parties I'm making a public spectacle at a private
party. Private, being the operative word.
I never jumped to the conclusion that photographers are pornographers. My
brother is an amateur photographer and I know he's not a pornographer so I
never would have made that link. My point was, and is, that I don't know what
those photos are going to be used for and once taken they can be used for
anything and that is objectionable. I repeat my statement: I dance for myself
and for the audience that I see there. I don't dance for the audience on the
internet, back home, or your scrapbook 20+ years from now. Whether those
scrapbooks are used for porn or not isn't the point. The point is that my
one-time act at a private place shouldn't be saved for posterity unless someone
asks me if it can be.
> > Because it's polite. Because I honestly believe that a person's right to
> > privacy outweighs your right to have a scrapbook full of photos of
> strangers.
> > If you don't consider it polite, then that's your problem.
>
> I hope I am readign this wrong, but is sounds to me as if you are saying:
> "Because I do not like it, then it is objectively wrong, and therefor
> should be forbidden and backed up with the weight of law".
> God in Heaven, I hope I am wrong. There is enough of that nitwittery in the
> mundane world without carrying it over into the SCA.
I used the word _polite_. If you read polite as law, then so be it. I read
polite as manners. I'm not saying it's wrong because I do not like it (and I'm
not sure why it's only men that are interpreting it that way!), I'm saying that
it's rude because it's impolite. And again, if you don't consider it polite,
then that is indeed your problem.
> Here again, this sounds like I don't like it so it should be illegal.
No, no, no. It's impolite and thus it's rude. The polite thing is for the one
bearing the camera to ask before photo'ing. We shouldn't have to stop and tell
everyone who enters the party "no photos". The ones entering with the party
with the camera should ask every one of their subjects "can I photo?".
> What about this: At the outset of your performance simply make the *POLITE*
> request that no photographs or video be taken of *YOUR* performance. If you
> like explain your reasons, and leave it at that. If someone then ignores
>
I shouldn't have to. I'm not the one bringing the camera along! The burden of
manners should be on the one bringing the camera, not the person just trying to
go about their business. The polite thing is for the one who wants to make a
scrapbook to ask the strangers before putting them in said scrapbook. I went
around several days at war taking photos. The only photos of people I took
were all of people I asked before taking their photo. Simple enough. Again,
courtesy.
> So, I guess it comes down to this, take my suggestion and ask that there be
> no photos taken during your performance, or get over it.
>
No!!! What a rude comment!
It comes down to this... let he who walks in with the camera take my suggestion
and ask first before taking photos of people, or get over it. I am simply
flabbergasted that you still believe the burden of "photo/no photo" lies with
the person attending the event without a camera and NOT with the person
bringing a camera to an event.
-Bianca
Powers
> I feel your pain. After being drowned out for years by
>guitarist/Singers I finaly reaslised what to do. You can too. Send me vast
>quantities of money and I might send you you own set of bagpipes
The instrument I play is hammer and anvil and hot iron/steel, I usually stick
to the tenor range though sometimes my arm acts up or I'm doing delicate work
and shift to a soprano instrument. The bass is for when some young strong
feller needs to work off some energy.
Thomas (anvils from 1# to 515#, hammers from 4oz to 17# + 30# triphammer)
--
Best Regards,
W.Thomas Powers
bard...@toad.net
Because a woman (or man) dancing around a fire at a late-night Pennsic
party doesn't necessarily consider it "performance." Someone is moved
by the music and the atmosphere to express themselves in a way they
may not in the mundane world. She is already pushing her boundaries of
safety and comfort, and it's a beautiful magical thing. A camera is an
invasion of mundanity and, in many cases, squelches that
expression. How sad!
This is very different from a performer who hopes for exposure in the
outside world, or indeed beyond that little corner of the party.
Indeed, as a musician I often think of a live performance as a sort of
sand painting, an ethereal momentary thing of which I will make many
more in the future. It may be inspired and imbued with the magic of the
moment, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to translate well
to being recorded and preserved. I generally don't mind still
photography, but would rather not have to deal with sound/video
recording unless I have some advance warning.
Many of the other festivals I attend, such as Starwood, require
cameras to be registered and prohibit photography of anyone without
their permission, including incidental "background people." That,
among other things, leads to a freer environment for people to do
their thing.
Not that I think Pennsic should have such a policy, but being aware of
other's feelings could go a long way toward establishing some kind of
consensus of "common courtesy."
Doesn't the fact that one dancer feels inhibited by cameras (and I
know she's not the only one) make you think twice about shooting random
dancers? Is it worth that much to have your picture of a stranger,
whatever purpose that picture may serve?
Sincerely,
Godfrey (who kept worrying about storms every time he saw that eerie flash)
--
Jim Brewster
bard...@toad.net
http://www.toad.net/~bardobro/
David Debono
wrote:
>>>OTOH one expects some background noise at events; however each time it
>>>occurred the drummers were in plain sight of the other musicians.
>>>Thomas
>>
>>I can only assume from this that there were some drummers playing who
>>do not have the common decency to play with the musicians. I have, and
>>do, play a Boudrahn and enjoy the music but I have had session people
>>say directly to me that the only good way for a drummer to play is
>>with a Stanley Knife...... They have always apologised after the
>>session though *smile*
>>
>>Is this what we are talking about?
>
>The one that particularly rankles was when there were about 20 people
>listening to a talented friend of mine playing, (I've listened to him play 6
>hours straight by memory alone!), he was the founder of the shire I first
>joined 23 years ago and I only get to see him at Pennsic these days. A
>wandering group of drummers moved in and hijacked the circle to bad drumming
>and belly dancing, a loud raucous crowd moved in and the magic was gone for
>the night.
>
Ah but that is different. Barging in and taking over is bad news
AFAIAC. Joining in with a session, well thats what sessions are all
about.
>Thomas
>
>>If so then I wish that people would understand that drummers augment
>>music and assist. A good drummer *can* carry the beat but should never
>>*run* the beat to the exclusion of the music...
>
>Assisting a person who has not requested assistance is in questionable taste
>try "assisting" a conductor sometime...I have no quarrel with drumming as a
>*part* of entertainment I just want the possibility of other *types* of
>entertainment without drumming barging in. Perhaps the consideration that
>people have differing tastes and that *your* fun might not be fun for others.
>(I would love to have each camp mandated to be full of forges and spinning
>wheels so all could "enjoy" the war as we do; but some nagging little voice
>keeps saying that some folk like standing in the sun in armour hitting each
>other with sticks any my code says that they should be allowed to follow their
>own weird...)
True, as I say dropping into someone elses performance is a different
thing. I *have* though been asked to join in and willingly did. Point
is that it is far harder to hit a drum quietly. Try doing a quiet drum
roll with a couple of drum sticks or a quiet triple roll on a bodhran
with a beater. Personally I don't think people should consider joining
into a session scenario if they are unable to do this.
>
>I camp where the middle eastern A&S tent is the next tent up from mine with
>no problems. In fact waking up to the ME Dance class is a favorite memory of
>mine. There is a time and place for most things.
>
Thomas, I live in London so I don't know what the arrangements are at
Pensic.
Take care
David D.
The Mediaeval Combat Society
The Historical Reenactment Web Site
http://www.montacute.net/histrenact/welcome.htm
David Debono
wrote:
>
>> I have, and do, play a Boudrahn and enjoy the music but I have had
>> session people say directly to me that the only good way for a drummer to
>> play is with a Stanley Knife.
>
>To which the only answer is to play the drum with the knife, successfully
>and with flair. Really: I've done it a couple times.
>
>===========================================================================
>Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@panix.com
>who also owns The Bodhran Page, http://www.ceolas.org/instruments/bodhran/
Hmmm were it to be a cheap Indian import then maybe but at £120 a
throw, most of that goat skin costs..... I think not.....
Take care
.
David Debono
wrote:
>
>
>David Debono <david....@montacute.net> wrote in article
><16f5ot8deq5m82mtf...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> I can only assume from this that there were some drummers playing who
>> do not have the common decency to play with the musicians. I have, and
>> do, play a Boudrahn and enjoy the music but I have had session people
>> say directly to me that the only good way for a drummer to play is
>> with a Stanley Knife...... They have always apologised after the
>> session though *smile*
>
>That is my general complaint regarding doumbeks. I've had one of them
>launch into that bloody-damn dum tekatek right in the middle of a rather
>soft and emotion-filled song I wrote for my lady. I'm not sure who wanted
>to strangle the jackass more, me, her, or my senior man-at-arms.
>
*grin* or break the skin by upending it over said drummers head?
>OTOH, a friend of mine cannnot play the bodhran to save his life, but he
>can play the doumbek. We had a ball one evening at a semi-mundane
>bonfire/event doing Irish, Scots and SCA "filks" on guitar and doumbek.
>Then I put down my guitar, picked up my bodhran and tried to keep up with
>him and a few others as they played for a couple of mid-eastern dancers.
>
>My general gripe is more with the drummer than the drum, but the ease with
>which one can acquire the basics of the doumbek, as well as the apparent
>hope that one may attract scantily clad women to dance to the doumbek seems
>(to my observation anyhow) to attract some of the newer and er ... courtesy
>challenged members.
>
>Morgan
Matters not what sort of drum IMHO but your point is sound.
Take care
Elizabeth M. Levin
: icyc...@bestweb.net (Nicole) wrote in <3B83BE54...@bestweb.net>:
: >1) Frankly, yes. Honestly, I think they shouldn't be doing any of that in
: >the first place, let alone have to ask permission first. Firstly,
: >flashbulbs are dangerous at night if you're dancing around a campfire and
: >are suddenly instantly blinded.
: I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. I have been photographed at
: night while juggling and didn't miss a ball. The lack of flaming belly
: dancers would seem to somewhat diminish the "danger" of flash photography.
I wouldn't say so. I would say it means we've been lucky. Those flashes
are known triggers for migraines and seizures in some folks. In pretty
much everybody, they _ruin_ night vision. Also, they're not period. Why is
it that you feel that your non-period hobby takes precedence over period
hobbies at an SCA event?
: >It ruins any medieval atmosphere and is
: >generally annoying.
: Perhaps and depends. I have to question the "Medieval Atmosphere" of a
: party that has a "Wet Chemise Party" or a "Scantily Clad Contest" (aside:
: My wife was in that one at Pandora's Box. She was the first contestant,
: and should have won, too.)
We were talking about dancers before, who prefer to dance without you
taking pictures. If the contestants in such non-period activities give
their permission, by all means- photograph. Do not, however, expect to
just photograph where you choose without consulting anyone first.
: >Secondly, what's wrong with asking someone's
: >permission before photographing them???
: Nothing is wrong. I never said that. I said "Why should they have to?"
: That in no way implies that it is wrong to. But you didn't answer my
: question.
They should have to because it's polite, it's respectful of their subject,
and finally because photography is not a right. Privacy is.
: >You make it sound like anyone
: >attending a party should be expected to be photographed!!!
: I SAY:
: Do you really think that people should have to ask everyone's permission to
: photograph or videotape when they are at a party?
If they expect to take a picture of someone, they should ask permission.
If you would like to hold a party in your emcampment where the posted
rules are that anyone attending gives consent to be photographed, do so.
Otherwise, you ask for consent of the photographic subject.
: You think I MEAN:
: You make it sound like anyone attending a party should be expected to be
: photographed!!!
: Whew...
: That is a bit of a reach. Almost intellectually dishonest, even.
I would say that it's not even that much of a stretch.
: Thank you for the definition of what Pennsic is... I was wondering why
: everyone was going around calling me "Lord" and stuff, a-hyuk. (Is there an
: emote for giving someone the "bird"?)
Thank you for your demonstration of courtesy. Now we all know _exactly_
how much of an argument you can sustain without having recourse to simply
insulting those who disagree with you. Was there more?
: >the assumption
: >should be that you will NOT be photographed and anything to the contrary
: >should be asked for. You want to take pictures of your friends and get
: >others randomly in the background, fine. But you want to take pictures of
: >a specific person without their permission, that's definitely not fine.
: You still have not defined why it is not fine. Because you don't like it?
: Is that the only reason you have?
It's the only reason she needs. You want to photograph her, you need to
_check_ that it's OK. She did not agree to be your personal model simply
by attending Pennsic. Nor by attending a party, nor by dancing. You want a
photograph of her, you need permission. You want to publish it, you need
_written_ permission.
: >Besides, many parties like Men Without Pants were specifically disallowing
: >photography and yet the camera-happy types were taking pictures anyway!
: That seems to be an issue of "Not allowed here" but that doesn't mean it is
: inherently wrong everywhere else. If the city park has "Don't walk on the
: grass" signs which are routinely ignored, is it not permissible to walk on
: the grass anywhere? Of course not. Your "Men without Pants" reason isn't
: supporting your "argument". That is just an attempt to "Appeal to
: Majority", though in this case it is Appeal to Minority.
It's a sign of precisely how rude some shutterbugs are. If they can't be
bothered to respect the posted rules, what makes you assume they'll
respect her request? Frankly, they should have been escorted out and
requested to stay out.
: >It's rude and it doesn't belong.
: Again, this is simply a matter of opinion, limited only to you. There was
: never a shortage of dancers at any of the parties that I attended.
That has nothing to do with whether unwanted photography is rude. I assure
you, it is.
: >The assumption shouldn't be: I'm going
: >to a party at Pennsic so I should expect to be photographed.
: Again, why?
Because she didn't sign a model's release. Good enough?
: >The
: >assumption should be: I'm bringing a camera to a party at Pennsic so I
: >should expect to ask strangers before taking their picture.
: Ditto above...
Because someone might not appreciate your behavior in attempting to
photograph them. That someone just might be a lawyer, model, or just
someone familiar with the right to control their image. Or they might
simply be someone whose beliefs regarding cameras
: >The burden of ettiquette is on the one bringing the modern camera to a
: >period event. Period.
: How about a modern doumbeck to a period event, or modern glasses to a
: period event, or... (I'll see your 'Burden of Proof' with 'Slippery Slope')
: Is it wrong to film the bridge battle? Or a tournament? Or Great Court?
: These all happen at that thing you call Pennsic, too.
I'd attempt to get as much permission as possible for any of it. I'd also
say that glasses are significantly different from flash photography.
: >2) I don't have a fear of being photographed. I rather enjoy it.
: You didn't do what you wanted to (dance) because of the consequences. The
: thought of appearing on some website or as fantasy fodder for "drunken
: friends" kept you from doing something that you wanted. Is that not fear?
: Sounds like a social phobia to me.
Sounds like someone who prefers to be consulted on the use her image is
put to. Sounds appropriate to me.
: >Provided I know the person taking the pictures or at least the 1purpose of
: >the pictures and have a say on when they get taken.
: Well, okay.
But that's precisely what you're arguing against.
: >I do wish people
: >would ask first or just not do it.
: Do you really want however many people that are photographing coming up to
: you and constantly interrupt your dancing, asking permission to catch a few
: lightrays that has inadvertantly bounced off you? How many until it
: becomes annoying?
If they had common courtesy in the first place, they'd ask before she
began dancing. If they arrive during her dance and want pictures, they
should ask for a later opportunity to photograph her.
Elizabeth Levin
Wilson Heydt
Helen Nauert <celesti...@att.net> wrote:
>I usually turn down all requests for photos from persons I
>don't know now, and if I observe a "stealth photographer" aimed in my
>direction, I'll make some attempt to obscure myself in the shot.
There's stealth and there's stealth...I've been known to use a
600mm catadioptric.
--
Hal Ravn Hal Heydt
Mists, Mists, West Albany, CA
"They didn't call him Erik Bloodaxe because he was good with children."
--National Geograhic, May 2000
Wilson Heydt
Nicole <icyc...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>Curt Halbrook wrote:
>
>> > Until they
>> >start outlawing filming and photographing at night and/or people start
>> >having the decency to ask people before recording/photographing them,
>> >it'll stay that way too. And I'm not the only one who's hiding farther
>> >and farther from the campfire... *sigh*
>>
>> Do you really think that people should have to ask everyone's permission to
>> photographed keep you from doing other things that you enjoy doing?
There are legalities involved...mostly revolving aroudn whether or
not the place is considered "public"...
>1) Frankly, yes. Honestly, I think they shouldn't be doing any of that in the
>first place, let alone have to ask permission first. Firstly, flashbulbs are
>dangerous at night if you're dancing around a campfire and are suddenly
>instantly blinded. It ruins any medieval atmosphere and is generally annoying.
Is your objection to the photography or to the flashbulbs?
There *are* ways to get quite good--and often
interesting--photographs at night without the use of flash.
I have one particularly lovely one of the the West Royal Pavillion
taken solely by moonlight....
Elizabeth M. Levin
: and I really doubt that I am the only non-dancing middle
: easterner around either! ;-)
Nope.
Elizabeth M. Levin
: Is your objection to the photography or to the flashbulbs?
To the photography if I'm not asked for permission. To the flashbulbs
after that. I _hate_ what they do to my night vision.
: There *are* ways to get quite good--and often
: interesting--photographs at night without the use of flash.
: I have one particularly lovely one of the the West Royal Pavillion
: taken solely by moonlight....
Cool. And the West Royal Pavillion doesn't have rights that you're
violating. Wonderful. I probably wouldn't object to someone wanting to
take a picture of me by the fireside using fast film and slow
shutterspeed, provided they _asked_. Bianca has indicated that she would,
so you're better off asking me.
E. Levin
Elizabeth M. Levin
: wels...@aol.com (WelshWmn3) wrote in
: <20010822221043...@mb-fp.aol.com>:
: >Branwyn,
: >who was very upset when she saw a woman take her picture through the
: >window when she was working the MDA Auction booth.
: Why is having a picture being taken of you invasive? Why, specifically, were
: you upset when someone took your picture?
They did not have her permission to take that photograph. They took it
anyway. She was not comfortable with that. Should she be forced to wear a
sign saying "do not take my picture please."? Or should people with
cameras have the common decency to get permission before using everyone
else as their models? Perhaps those who do not want their pictures taken
should start charging, say, $10 a shot for their time spent as a model.
Perhaps that might encourage people to remember that they have no inborn
right to use others for their photography.
Wilson Heydt
Helen Nauert <celesti...@att.net> wrote:
>If you want the shot that badly, go for it, but don't post it to a
>website with my name spelt incorrectly and snarky comments about it,
>please.
Check with the other Westies that post and you will find that I am
not particularly given to snarky comments--either in person or over
photos.
I cite the 600mm to show that, if you are concerned that photos not
be taken, your horizons need to be wider than you might imagine.
If I ever get to Pennsic, I plan to get, and take, alens of not less
that 1000mm focal length, as I understand that the open field
battles are best seen from some distance away.
(FYI...the 600mm gives shole person coverage at about 80 to 100
yards.)
Todric
Curt Halbrook wrote:
> .... ooooooooookay....
>
> Do you really think that people should have to ask everyone's permission to
> photograph or videotape when they are at a party? Does the fear of being
> photographed keep you from doing other things that you enjoy doing?
>
> -C
Taking something without permission of the owner (even a photograph) is
theft, pure and simple, and no rationalizing will ever make the contrary
true.
Owning a camera does not give one a license to steal, and just because
someone is performing does _not_ mean that they wish to be stolen from.
A few years ago at Pennsic, to a round of applause from the onlookers,
I took a cam-corder away from a "gentleman" who was using it at the
Swimming Hole (he had it on shore, hidden under a towel).
I do not believe the camera worked very well after I dunked it in the
creek.
If Common Sense and Common Courtesy don't prevail, Common Outrage may
have to suffice.
I _strongly_ recommend Common Courtesy and Common Sense.
Todric
Wilson Heydt
Nicole <icyc...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>Just because the dancers make sure to stay in one place after they're blinded
>and thus don't end up flaming doesn't mean that they weren't blinded. I said
>it was dangerous and it is. Just because you're an excellent juggler doesn't
>mean a dancer can't stumble whilst temporarily blinded, two separate issues.
Okay...the objection here is to the flash. That is one, even as one
who has done extensive photographic work at SCA events, agrees with.
Most people who've seen me at events don't even know that I carry a
flash unit.
It is unfortunate that too many cameras cannot disable the flash,
and even more people don't know who to take pictures in less than
ideal light without one. The former can be taken care of by using
better equipment. The later by education.
>Oh, and as for the fear of videotaping keeping me from doing other things I
>enjoy? No, it doesn't. But ME dancing is about the most erotic thing I do in
>public so yes, videoing that keeps me from doing it.
It appears that the issue here is one of deciding what the
boundaries between private and public are. I think you're using a
very broad brush on what consistutes "private", and one that many
would disagree with.
Do you object to unconsulted photography in:
A public park outside of a specific event?
In court?
Of a tourney field?
In an event shopping area?
In a non-walled encampment?
In an enclosed encampment?
At an open party?
At a party that is by invitation only?
All of those are public to one degree and private to another. If
you are joining an existing party, and debating whether or not to
dance, what criteria do you use to decide if it a private activity
or a public one?
Wilson Heydt
WelshWmn3 <wels...@aol.com> wrote:
>Curt Halbrook wrote:
>
>>Do you really think that people should have to ask everyone's permission to
>>photograph or videotape when they are at a party?
>
>photographed, I'd say yes, people should have to ask the intended target of the
>film's permission before taking a picture.
It's only invasive if done wrong. Tying this to the drum
thread...can you hear the click of the shutter over the drums?
What everyone notices is the flash.
Wilson Heydt
Todric <tod...@raex.com> wrote:
> Taking something without permission of the owner (even a photograph) is
>theft, pure and simple, and no rationalizing will ever make the contrary
>true.
>
> Owning a camera does not give one a license to steal, and just because
>someone is performing does _not_ mean that they wish to be stolen from.
That's as silly as "black box steal soul."
Wilson Heydt
Nicole <icyc...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>SCA events are not public events. You pay money to get in, you agree to follow
>specific rules that aren't applicable outside of the event (for example, no
>pets). SCA events are private parties and events. Will I dance at a friend's
>private party? Yes. Will I dance on a street corner? No. Not the same
>thing. By dancing at SCA parties I'm making a public spectacle at a private
>party. Private, being the operative word.
Semi-private, at best, and the rules do not specify "no cameras", if
you want to be picky about it.
>It comes down to this... let he who walks in with the camera take my suggestion
>and ask first before taking photos of people, or get over it. I am simply
>flabbergasted that you still believe the burden of "photo/no photo" lies with
>the person attending the event without a camera and NOT with the person
>bringing a camera to an event.
I hate to break this to you, but unless the pciture is being taken
expressly for publication, no permission is required (while we try
to do better, remember that mundane law trumps SCA rules). In the
cases where permission is required, it's (a) written, and (b) called
a "release". Even then, for things like news--and Pennsic could
certainly be considered a newsworthy event--no release is required
for publication.
Now I will grant that, if it is known that you do not wish your
picture taken, that should be respected. There are individuals that
I see that feel that way, and I try to avoid shooting them, but the
burden is actually on you to make that known. At Pennsic, with
12,500 people most of whom don't know each other, that would be hard
to do. In our general society, peopel tend to like picutres being
taken--especially if they get copies of them.
Beyond all this, I will agree that cameras as we know them are out
of period, though the earliest known use of a lens in a _camera
obscura_ *is* period (being in 1598). When we actually ban out of
period shoes and glasses, we can also ban cameras.
It is my own practice to try to be unobtrusive with a camera. I'm
not up there shoving it in someone's face or trying to get where I
can shoot, but blocking others. I work from the back of the crowd,
shoot around or over people--or just don't shoot. I'm willing to
help educate others in how to do so.
John Groseclose
wrote:
> It's only invasive if done wrong. Tying this to the drum
> thread...can you hear the click of the shutter over the drums?
>
> What everyone notices is the flash.
I disagree. What I tend to notice is the placement of that picture on
someone's website after the fact without the permission of the people
involved, without a model's release form.
The flash is just an annoyance. The replication of my image without my
knowledge or permission is downright rude, and in some cases illegal.
--
Express your Epinion! http://caradoc.epinions.com/welcome.html?member=caradoc
Drink Coca-Cola? Read: http://www.guerrillanews.com/cocakarma/
John Groseclose
wrote:
> That's as silly as "black box steal soul."
Try taking pictures in any major museum, at a play, during a concert,
and see if *they* think it's that silly.
I'm all for the parties putting signs up at their gates: "Photographers
will be violated."
Elizabeth M. Levin
: In article <3B8526D4...@bestweb.net>,
: Nicole <icyc...@bestweb.net> wrote:
: >SCA events are not public events. You pay money to get in, you agree to follow
: >specific rules that aren't applicable outside of the event (for example, no
: >pets). SCA events are private parties and events. Will I dance at a friend's
: >private party? Yes. Will I dance on a street corner? No. Not the same
: >thing. By dancing at SCA parties I'm making a public spectacle at a private
: >party. Private, being the operative word.
: Semi-private, at best, and the rules do not specify "no cameras", if
: you want to be picky about it.
Private. Entry is restricted, especially at Pennsic.
: >It comes down to this... let he who walks in with the camera take my suggestion
: >and ask first before taking photos of people, or get over it. I am simply
: >flabbergasted that you still believe the burden of "photo/no photo" lies with
: >the person attending the event without a camera and NOT with the person
: >bringing a camera to an event.
: I hate to break this to you, but unless the pciture is being taken
: expressly for publication, no permission is required (while we try
: to do better, remember that mundane law trumps SCA rules). In the
: cases where permission is required, it's (a) written, and (b) called
: a "release". Even then, for things like news--and Pennsic could
: certainly be considered a newsworthy event--no release is required
: for publication.
One of the complaints she had was publication of her picture without her
permission- on the web. That's right out.
: Now I will grant that, if it is known that you do not wish your
: picture taken, that should be respected. There are individuals that
: I see that feel that way, and I try to avoid shooting them, but the
: burden is actually on you to make that known. At Pennsic, with
: 12,500 people most of whom don't know each other, that would be hard
: to do. In our general society, peopel tend to like picutres being
: taken--especially if they get copies of them.
But if you're going to focus a shot on one person, it's your
responsibility to find out whether that person wants to be photographed.
Or whether the parent/guardian allows in the case of a minor. This latter
case could be particularly sticky for the shutterbug who doesn't respect
other people's boundaries.
: Beyond all this, I will agree that cameras as we know them are out
: of period, though the earliest known use of a lens in a _camera
: obscura_ *is* period (being in 1598). When we actually ban out of
: period shoes and glasses, we can also ban cameras.
I'm not talking about banning them. I am talking about getting people to
use them with respect. Failing to do so could lead others to decide they
ought to be banned, and that would not be good. So, those of you who think
anybody ought to be able to take any picture: what about the classic
swimming hole? Is that allowable? What about the kids running around? If
not, why not?
: It is my own practice to try to be unobtrusive with a camera. I'm
: not up there shoving it in someone's face or trying to get where I
: can shoot, but blocking others. I work from the back of the crowd,
: shoot around or over people--or just don't shoot. I'm willing to
: help educate others in how to do so.
Fine, now if you're going to focus on one person how about asking
permission?
Elizabeth M. Levin
: In article <3b855c3e$0$12823$ac96...@news.raex.com>,
: Todric <tod...@raex.com> wrote:
: > Taking something without permission of the owner (even a photograph) is
: >theft, pure and simple, and no rationalizing will ever make the contrary
: >true.
: >
: > Owning a camera does not give one a license to steal, and just because
: >someone is performing does _not_ mean that they wish to be stolen from.
: That's as silly as "black box steal soul."
No. It's not. One can have a perfectly legitimate objection to having
one's image taken and (especially) used or published. Some (think models)
license that image out. Others prefer not to have it taken at all. That is
their choice. Again, I ask: Is it OK for someone to object to their
picture being taken while they are nude (classic swimming hole), or is
that just dandy too? What about the minors there?
Nicole
Wilson Heydt wrote:
> There are legalities involved...mostly revolving aroudn whether or
> not the place is considered "public"...
>
And Pennsic is not public. Whether I'm at a party therein or in my encampment or
your encampment, Pennsic is still not a public place.
> Is your objection to the photography or to the flashbulbs?
>
My objection is to the photography. The flashbulbs are just the annoyance that
even those not in the photograph notice.
> There *are* ways to get quite good--and often
> interesting--photographs at night without the use of flash.
>
Great. Provided you ask permission of the subject, I'm all for good photos without
flash. Heck, with permission of the subject, I wouldn't even mind flash photos so
much. Without permission of the subject, flash or no flash, it's still rude.
-Bianca
Elizabeth M. Levin
: In article <GIJE6...@kithrup.com>, Wilson Heydt <whh...@kithrup.com>
: wrote:
: > That's as silly as "black box steal soul."
: Try taking pictures in any major museum, at a play, during a concert,
: and see if *they* think it's that silly.
: I'm all for the parties putting signs up at their gates: "Photographers
: will be violated."
I think a group wanting no photography in their encampment during a party
should post and follow the following rule: Photography at this party will
result in confiscation of the film. The photographer will be asked to
leave. Equally, if an encampment wants a party where all participants
agree to be photographed, they should post notices to that effect,
especially on the party announcements.
In all other cases, the photographer ought to ask permission of the
subjects before taking a photo or for written permission to publish,
should s/he intend it for a website/publication.
Powers
>>no problems. In fact waking up to the ME Dance class is a favorite memory of
>>mine. There is a time and place for most things.
>
>Thomas, I live in London so I don't know what the arrangements are at
>Pensic.
Ask some of the folks from Sweden or perhaps the ones from Australia; I hadn't
realized that Londoners were having travel restrictions; due to Hoof and Mouth
or BSE?
I live in Ohio; but the Drachenwald Coronation I attended in Germany was
quite nice.
Thomas whose travel plans are often spur of the moment as the villagers
start milling about with those pitchforks and torches...
Cynthia Virtue
> I think a group wanting no photography in their encampment during a party
> should post and follow the following rule: Photography at this party will
> result in confiscation of the film.
Is that legal, even if posted? Not that I'm advocating rude
photographers; I try to be a courteous photographer, myself. But I'm
sure that tossing a video camera in the water is likewise extremely iffy.
--
Cynthia Virtue and/or Cynthia du Pré Argent
SAVE THE WHALES!
Collect the entire set
Nicole
Wilson Heydt wrote:
> Check with the other Westies that post and you will find that I am
> not particularly given to snarky comments--either in person or over
> photos.
>
Congrats for being honorable. Unfortunately, the few who aren't as such
are ruining it for you. I site the example stated in this thread of the
lady who ended up on the "Bad Garb" webpage (argh, can't find that post
now).
> I cite the 600mm to show that, if you are concerned that photos not
> be taken, your horizons need to be wider than you might imagine.
>
Oh, please. I work on satellite imagery and know exactly how pictures can
be taken of people with a 600mm from a field away or better yet from a CCD
in earth orbit. Rather than making me feel, "they can get you any where"
and shrugging off all photos being taken of me, it's reminded me to cherish
being in private (ie, not public places, ie Pennsic) where I shouldn't
expect to be photo'ed without my permission. So whether I see you at the
party or you're using a zoom from a hilltop far away, so long as I'm at
somewhere like Pennsic, it's courtesy to ask my permission before you
capture my image and use it for I-don't-know-what. And I'm not implying
that you'll use it for ill will, just that _I don't know what you're using
it for_ and that is objectionable.
> If I ever get to Pennsic, I plan to get, and take, alens of not less
> that 1000mm focal length, as I understand that the open field
> battles are best seen from some distance away.
Wonderful! I'd love to see those pictures. And if you use that lens to
photo dancers at parties at Pennsic, I hope you have the courtesy to ask
their permission first. Period.
> (FYI...the 600mm gives whole person coverage at about 80 to 100
> yards.)
>
And an old CCD gives you better than meter resolution from about 12 miles
up... so? Doesn't make taking pictures of people in private settings any
more polite.
Cheers,
-Bianca
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Nicole Spaun Brown University
SCA: Lady Bianca di Bari Galileo Imaging
Dept. of Geological Sciences Planetary Geosciences Group
So why don't you tell me about the world you left behind? -DCD
Elizabeth M. Levin
: > I think a group wanting no photography in their encampment during a party
: > should post and follow the following rule: Photography at this party will
: > result in confiscation of the film.
: Is that legal, even if posted? Not that I'm advocating rude
: photographers; I try to be a courteous photographer, myself. But I'm
: sure that tossing a video camera in the water is likewise extremely iffy.
I've seen that rule, or one very similar, posted at private galleries. I
was not the one talking about tossing cameras in the water, and wouldn't
do so. Certainly, See a Real Lawyer to find out the exact permissible
rules, but at the very least, rogue photographers ought to find themselves
tossed from the party, if not paraded up to each of the possible subjects
to apologise first. IIRC the first rock concert I attended posted that
unauthorized recordings would be confiscated, and their makers ejected
from the concert.
Nicole
Wilson Heydt wrote:
> It appears that the issue here is one of deciding what the
> boundaries between private and public are. I think you're using a
> very broad brush on what consistutes "private", and one that many
> would disagree with.
>
Any thing any where at any time at Pennsic I consider private. I quote from the
Pennsic XXX site rules: "Cooper's Lake Campground is private property with the
right to refuse or deny admission without cause of any kind." Thus Pennsic is a
private event on private property. So where is that broad brush I'm supposed to be
using? I see a very fine, chiseled one right on page 1, paragraph 1 of the site
rules.
> Do you object to unconsulted photography in:
>
> A public park outside of a specific event?
>
No, though I'd prefer them to ask permission first. But if they don't, that's
understandable as I'm in a public place.
> In court?
Yes, if I'm the primary subject of the photo.
> Of a tourney field? In an event shopping area?
> In a non-walled encampment?
> In an enclosed encampment?
> At an open party?
> At a party that is by invitation only?
>
Ditto as above. All of that occurs within Pennsic. And thus common courtesy is to
ask permission of the subject before making them a subject.
> All of those are public to one degree and private to another. If
> you are joining an existing party, and debating whether or not to
> dance, what criteria do you use to decide if it a private activity
> or a public one?
>
I use this simple criteria: it's at Pennsic and ergo private. I should feel safe
to dance without care of being photographed by strangers. If strangers want my
picture, they should ask me for permission. Common courtesy.
And then that's usually when I see something similar to what I saw at Vlad's this
year... young woman dancing around campfire wearing very little. Older man wearing
lots and obviously unknown to dancing young woman pushes through crowd to get by
campfire. Man leans in, making one dancer move over, to get a good photo of the
young woman. Just then, another young lady moves out towards the campfire to throw
out a scrap of paper into the fire. As she walks by, the man takes his photo and
of course ends up obscured by the woman heading to the fire. What does the
"gentleman" do? Says very loudly, rudely, and in a sarcastic tone this NY'er knows
well, "Thank you!". When the young lady throwing out the paper turns to him,
unaware of what happened, and says, "Excuse me?" He responds with, "Yeah, excuse
you." And then he waves his hand to get her out of the way and takes his picture
of the other young woman dancing, much to the amusement of the 4 other "gentlemen"
standing with this guy. Now I don't cite this story to say all photographers are
rude. And I don't cite it to say that even most photographers are rude. But I
cite it as an example of what some people now consider acceptable behaviour around
campfires at Pennsic.
Had I been able to get closer to this "gentleman", I'd've said something. As it
was I told my fighter-friends with me to find him on the battlefield and make him
say "Excuse me", though they said he's definitely not the fighter-type.
Again, not all photographers behave the same but when stuff like this goes on it
makes you wonder if common courtesy is ever commonly considered anymore.
-Bianca
Nicole
"Elizabeth M. Levin" wrote:
> They should have to because it's polite, it's respectful of their subject,
> and finally because photography is not a right. Privacy is.
>
Here here! Too many people think that their camera is just an extension of their
eyes and memories without realizing that they're affecting someone else's right
to privacy by using that camera.
> If they expect to take a picture of someone, they should ask permission.
> If you would like to hold a party in your emcampment where the posted
> rules are that anyone attending gives consent to be photographed, do so.
> Otherwise, you ask for consent of the photographic subject.
Absolutely. Pennsic is private so I still don't understand why people think that
photos of anyone therein are ok unless that person tells otherwise them
beforehand. That's so backwards.
I really wonder what many of the shutterbugs would do if the cameras were turned
on them at times they were engaging in self-expression. Oh well.
Cheers,
-Bianca
Morgan E. Smith
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, thomas wrote:
snipped for brevity....
>
> Common courtesy... Hmmm... I will agree that flash photography can be
> intrusive, especially at night. But, I will repeat my earlier statement
> that IMO, by making the concious, willful decision to dance in what she
> admits is a sensual, possibly erotic manner, she has made the concious,
> willful decision to put herself on public display. So, barring mental
> telepathy, or a public verbal request, how is the photographer to know of
> her desire not to be photographed.
But this whole discussion turns on the dancer's decision NOT to dance -
because she cannot rely on anyone having the courtesy to adhere to a
spoken request that no photography take place.
The point, in the end, is that the rest of us may lose out on
interesting and unique experiences - real-life experiences - because some
people don't seem to be able to experience anything in real time: they
have to have the tangible copy in order to enjoy stuff(1). So some
dancers, or other performers, may choose not to performin many situations.
I disagree with your other point, which assumes tacit permission for
recording performances by still or motion film, by the mere fact of
performing. We don't get paid for SCA performances, and assuming that by
doing something publicly we are allowing exploitation by all and sundry is
just wrong. (Not just commercial exploitation. There's forms of private
exploitation too: taking a video home and showing it to your friends can
be, in some contexts, a form of exploitation. As was shown by the "hideous
garb" example.)
Claiming someone is a prima donna because they choose not to feed into
someone else's percieved right to record and possibly exploit anyone who
crosses their path is rather extreme.
Morgan the Unknown
(1) The big money isn't in running a bungee-jumping venue. The money is on
the videotape people *always* buy, so they can convince themselves they
actually did do it. They've done studies. People really do buy the vid for
just that reason.
> Also, while we are on the subject of courtesy, how courteous is it to
> assume, that any male who photographs her performance is automatically a
> pornographer or a wannabe pornographer?
>
> I will grant you however that there is no longer any such thing as "common"
> sense.
>
> Morgan
>
>
WelshWmn3
>>Branwyn,
>>who was very upset when she saw a woman take her picture through the
>>window when she was working the MDA Auction booth.
Curt Halbrook responded:
>Why is having a picture being taken of you invasive? Why, specifically, were
>you upset when someone took your picture?
>
I do not like my pictures taken. I do not have to state my reason to you, or
anybody. It *should* be enough that I dislike it. *Most* people I know
respect that, and don't take my picture.
People who are strangers to me have no reason to take my picture specifically.
They are strangers. It is MY image they are capturing. They have no right to
violate my privacy by making me the target of their pictures. *IF* (and that's
a big if) they ask me, and I give permission, it is not a violation, as I have
given permission.
If they don't ask, then they are violating my rights to not have my image
captured.
After all, it is STILL my body, and I have the right to deny use (even
photographic use) of it to whomever I choose.
Branwyn
WelshWmn3
> But, I will repeat my earlier statement
>that IMO, by making the concious, willful decision to dance in what she
>admits is a sensual, possibly erotic manner, she has made the concious,
>willful decision to put herself on public display.
She has NOT agreed to be published on the internet, in "amature" magazines, or
to be fantasized over by horny men who, not having been at Pennsic, think she's
just being erotic (at best). She has ONLY agreed to dance at THAT party, for
herself, the drums, and the people who happen to be around that fire.
>So, barring mental
>telepathy, or a public verbal request, how is the photographer to know of
>her desire not to be photographed.
That is why the onus is on the photographer to ask. If she request no picture
taking verbally BEFORE she starts dancing, then whomever comes in AFTER she
starts dancing won't have heard her request for no photography. So, how are
they to know, even supposing she did ask before? The only way is for them to
either hold their pictures, or interrupt the dance and ask. Of the two, the
least rude option would be holding the picture taking until that dance was
over, and then asking, maybe even asking if she'd dance one more dance just so
the picture could be taken. What's so hard about that? It needs no "mental
telepathy" to engage in courtesy.
>Also, while we are on the subject of courtesy, how courteous is it to
>assume, that any male who photographs her performance is automatically a
>pornographer or a wannabe pornographer?
It is not assumed that *any* male who takes photographs of middle eastern
dancing are pornographers. However, even in the most benign publications,
using somebody's image while they are belly dancing, and publishing them
_without permission_ (and internet counts), is violating the rights a person
has to say when and where their images may be publish.
A person's right to privacy should be sancrosanct. A person's right to
carry/use a camera is not.
Branwyn
David Debono
wrote:
Thomas, I am also not an SCA member (it is a very small thing over
here in the UK) but I hang out here for the sometimes interesting
discussion WRT reenactment in general.
Take care
David D.
The Mediaeval Combat Society
The Historical Reenactment Web Site
http://www.montacute.net/histrenact/welcome.htm
Elizabeth M. Levin
: In article <3B83F3D3...@att.net>,
: Helen Nauert <celesti...@att.net> wrote:
: >I usually turn down all requests for photos from persons I
: >don't know now, and if I observe a "stealth photographer" aimed in my
: >direction, I'll make some attempt to obscure myself in the shot.
: There's stealth and there's stealth...I've been known to use a
: 600mm catadioptric.
Which is dandy for taking shots from a distance, but still doesn't solve
the problem of that distant subject not wanting to have a picture taken.
Elizabeth M. Levin
: In article <3B8423B3...@bestweb.net>,
: Nicole <icyc...@bestweb.net> wrote:
: >Just because the dancers make sure to stay in one place after they're blinded
: >and thus don't end up flaming doesn't mean that they weren't blinded. I said
: >it was dangerous and it is. Just because you're an excellent juggler doesn't
: >mean a dancer can't stumble whilst temporarily blinded, two separate issues.
: Okay...the objection here is to the flash. That is one, even as one
: who has done extensive photographic work at SCA events, agrees with.
: Most people who've seen me at events don't even know that I carry a
: flash unit.
That's only one part of the problem. The rest of the problem is taking
people's picture when they don't want you to.
Elizabeth M. Levin
: In article <20010822221043...@mb-fp.aol.com>,
: WelshWmn3 <wels...@aol.com> wrote:
: >
: >Actually, as taking a picture is invasive, and as some people don't like being
: >photographed, I'd say yes, people should have to ask the intended target of the
: >film's permission before taking a picture.
: It's only invasive if done wrong. Tying this to the drum
: thread...can you hear the click of the shutter over the drums?
It's invasive if someone's picture goes where they don't want it, whether
it be the internet or the photo collection that everybody sees. It's
invasive if they see someone with a camera. It's invasive if they don't
want their picture taken.
: What everyone notices is the flash.
That's not necessarily so. Some, like the lady who found her picture
published on the web, notice the publication. Some notice the camera. Some
simply object, for one reason or another, to having their photograph
taken.
Harold Groot
>> boundaries between private and public are. I think you're using a
>> very broad brush on what consistutes "private", and one that many
>> would disagree with.
>Any thing any where at any time at Pennsic I consider private.
>I quote from the Pennsic XXX site rules: "Cooper's Lake Campground is >private property with the right to refuse or deny admission
>without cause of any kind." Thus Pennsic is a
>private event on private property. So where is that broad brush I'm >supposed to be using? I see a very fine, chiseled one right on page 1, >paragraph 1 of the site rules.
(jumping in)
I fear that you are making an extension that mundane law does not.
With the disclaimer that IANAL (I am not a lawyer), the following is
my layman's recollection of how the law works.
An important aspect is the activity in question. Is there general
"public access" to this event? For Pennsic, the answer is "yes". In
other words, you pay your fee and follow the rules (an attempt at
period clothing, etc.) and anyone from the general public may attend.
They are not restricting attendance to specific people they have
invited. They have a business (the campground) which is generally
open to everyone, though they have the right to ask people to leave.
The SCA is essentially the promoter of the event and the Coopers the
owners of the site. This is quite similar to the promoters of a rock
group getting together with the owners of a venue. They are certainly
allowed to establish rules for the event such as "no photography, no
sound recording" and so on. This is very common at concerts. It is
similar to a store with a "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" rule. There
is general access allowed by the public except as specifically
prohibited. This is not something that the SCA/Coopers have imposed
at Pennsic as "event rules" - with the exception of "No Flash
Photography in Court". Since they have imposed that limitation and no
others, the law will look upon it as "photography is generally
allowed".
Now, within the context of this "public access" event there are
individual parties put on by the people who are camping there. Again
you need to look at what is happening. Is this an "invitation-only"
party or is this a party where "the general public is invited"? A
large majority of parties at Pennsic are open to everyone - but some
are not, and others have specific rules. Cariadoc's Enchanted Grounds
area, for example, has a standing invitation to the general public to
attend as long as mundane aspects of life are set aside - which most
certainly would include the use of cameras. But the great majority of
parties have no such rules.
In general, the law allows photography of most things that are open to
the public. The law imposes many restrictions on the USE of those
photographs but does not prevent them from being taken. If you are
walking down the street I am allowed to take your picture. I am not
generally allowed to USE that picture without your release. I am not
allowed to publish it, enter it in contests, put it on a web site and
so on and so on, but I am allowed to take the picture. There are
additional freedoms to take AND USE pictures if the event or person is
considered newsworthy. The Pennsic War might well be considered
"newsworthy" by the courts. I don't know enough about court rulings to
know which way they would go - but I wouldn't bet the farm against it.
If you genuinely feel that the taking of pictures is not allowed BY
LAW you should consult a lawyer. I fear you will be disappointed. If
you believe that taking pictures is prohibited by event rules, you
have not shown that such rules exist.
But you have raised another point that IS both valid and important.
That is the matter of expectations and courtesy to others. Here we
are talking social conventions, not law. The expression "expectation
of privacy" has been used. Well, the law tends to have much narrower
limits than social convention. The law allows me to paw through your
garbage once it has been placed out for collection/removal. If you
routinely throw out love letters unshredded, I have the right to look
for them in the garbage pile. The courts have ruled that there is no
LEGAL "expectation of privacy" for this. But from a SOCIAL context,
everyone I know thinks that such behavior is rude, discourteous and
violates the SOCIAL expectation of privacy.
The SCA emphasizes polite, courteous behavior. But these standards
are not the same from place to place. At Pennsic we have to face the
fact that people arrive from all over and that there are several areas
where the social norms are not the same. Photography may be one.
In areas where the rules are written down, this sort of thing is
relatively easy. The fighting conventions are not identical from
Kingdom to Kingdom, so we have representatives from the Kingdoms get
together and establish rules that will be followed for THIS EVENT.
But for social conventions we do not have written rules and we do not
have people getting together to try to have "event rules". So it goes
by slow social pressure.
This newsgroup is a reasonable way of trying to arrive at a consensus.
We have people from many, many areas of the SCA who attend here.
While this is not a scientific random sample, it is most likely to be
"close enough" for at least setting out the problem and the main
arguments on the various sides.
OK, so let's look at the social conventions within the SCA, at an SCA
event. Some people feel that the default is "no pictures without
express permission." Others feel that the default is "pictures are
allowed unless specifically denied". There have been specific
references made to a few special areas. So let's get into some
discussion of where the lines should be drawn.
I feel confident that the Classic Swimming Hole is an area where the
great majority would agree that the default is "no pictures are
allowed". A similar social prohibition exists in all other "clothing
optional" places I am aware of in the USA. The Family Swimming Hole
was set up to accomodate those uncomfortable with the clothing
optional area.
At the other end of the spectrum, I am not aware of anyone who would
object to pictures being taken of the main battlefield. This is a
highly visible event-sponsored activity. People in armor may look
unusual but they are not generally "letting down their guard" or doing
things they would be embarrassed about. At the same time, it would be
almost impossible to get releases from a thousand fighters from a
general shot of the whole battlefield.
So - if we have some situations where photography is generally allowed
and others where it is generally banned, there must be a dividing line
somewhere. That is what we should discuss - where is the dividing
line? If we can come to some consensus here, we can then try to
spread the word and get it generally accepted. What are the main
factors involved?
The "embarrassment factor" is certainly one, as this is the prime
factor regarding the Classic Swimming Hole. The question then becomes
- should people expect this to =automatically= apply to the
belly-dancing scenario? There is a big distinction here. The attire
(or lack of it) at the swimming hole could subject one to arrest if
done on Main Street USA. The belly-dancing costume, while often more
revealing that the non-SCA dress for the person, is generally
something quite legal for Main Street USA. Indeed, it is often much
more modest than mundane swimwear and even some mundane streetwear.
So I would not AUTOMATICALLY assign it to a "do not photograph"
situation as I would the Classic Swimming Hole. I would instead say
"let's discuss this and see what people have to say about it".
The "Intrusion factor" is another area of concern. Flash photography
at court is banned precisely because it is intrusive. Available light
photography is not banned at court - the click of a shutter or whir of
a camcorder is not BY ITSELF sufficiently intrusive to be banned. But
one must also consider the manner of the photographer. If people are
coming down the aisle and the photographer is backing before them as
they approach, the photographer is very noticeable and that sort of
thing should be banned. If the photographer has a position in the
wings or back and uses a long lens (keeping the camera itself far away
from the center of attention), this is allowable.
Court is an event-sponsored activity where the medieval ambiance is
very important. If one is simply walking though the marketplace one
will see electric lights, golf carts and many other mundane items. A
flash picture there does not have the same magnitude of disruption as
at court. But what about around a fireplace at night?
My feeling is that the ambience is one of the primary aspects of such
parties. I feel this way even though I have been to plenty where the
conversations included discussions on computers, car problems getting
there, sending out for pizza and similar mundane things. One can
usually find a place where such conversations are just background
noise and try to "lose oneself" in the atmosphere of singing, dancing,
drumming and so on. A flash interrupts this no matter what.
Available light photography does not - as long as the photographer (as
in court) is not near the center of attention.
Another aspect is how prominant a particular person appears. If I
take a group shot of a thousand fighters, none is prominant. Most
people have no objection to such "crowd" pictures. If I take a
closeup of a single dancer, obviously the reverse is true. Again,
somewhere there must be a point where the line is crossed between
crowd and single person. Where is the line? 20 people is probably a
crowd, 2 people is still "both are prominant". Probably the line is
somewhere around a half dozen or so. What do others think?
The "safety factor" has also been mentioned. If the "intrusion
factor" is agreed upon as being valid, this becomes moot. Any place
where blindness might result is most definitely an intrusion. So this
only becomes a separate factor if the intrusion factor is discarded.
I think the great majority would agree that if there is a significant
safety risk involved the activity should be banned or at least
regulated. The question so far seems to center around whether there
really is a significant safety risk here. Just sitting around a
campfire involves minor risk, as does exposure to insect bites and
various other activities. Is the risk here enough to warrant
prohibition?
Well, this is already far longer than I wanted it to be, and there are
several other factors to consider. I would like to hear from others
on where they would draw the line from a social point of view
(involving courtesy and politeness). And if I was in error above on
the legal aspects, by all means draw my attention to that as well.
Just please be sure to identify which area you are talking about.
Ergard Joelson
Wandering Minstrel
Unobtrusive photographer
D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
Tero Heikkinen <tero.he...@erituote.fi> wrote:
>Wilson Heydt <whh...@kithrup.com> kirjoitti
>viestissä:GIFwD...@kithrup.com...
>> While the natives may be restless, they not restless *all* the time.
>With all that drumming going on, *no*wonder* the natives are restless.
No, as the old joke goes, "As long as drums continue, all is well."
One day the drumming stops. Native guide looks alarmed.
Traveller asks, "What's wrong? What does it mean when
the drums stop?"
"Very bad. Now guitar solo starts."
--
D. Glenn Arthur Jr./The Human Vibrator, dgl...@radix.net
Due to hand/wrist problems my newsreading time varies so I may miss followups.
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
<a href="http://www.radix.net/~dglenn/">Glenn's page</a>
D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
topic. (Where I've quoted others, I've pulled
several messages together.) There's some
thinking-aloud here and it gets a bit long, I fear,
but I hope some will find it worth reading.
What I do comes down to trade-offs. I'm going to
frustrate some people and I'm probably going to piss
some people off who don't think there's any room for
compromise, but my aim is to create my art while
annoying as few people as possible.
Let's start with a few of the basics, and please try
not to flame me until I've tied it all together, okay?
Nobody has the right not to be photographed in public
(in the US) -- the legal expectation of privacy does
not extend to public places -- though _courtesy_
dictates that if a photographer does know someone
wishes not to be photographed, he or she should
usually honour that request. OTOH, a photographer
_does_ need permission for non-news publication of a
person's recognizeable likeness. (That the permission
be in writing is merely to protect the photographer in
case the subject later forgets having given
permission, or changes his or her mind.)
Taking a photo of someone is not stealing anything
from them (though whether it makes them
_uncomfortable_ is a separate matter). Publishing
that photo without permission is.
That having been said, although Pennsic _feels_
"public" because we have "private camps" and "public
areas", it is, as has been pointed out, a private
event. A private event it's darned easy to get into,
but still... Now if the Coopers want to ban or limit
photography, what they say goes. As for the
ramifications on random photographers photographing
random people in "public" areas of Pennsic absent a
decree from the Coopers, I really don't know -- do we
have an IP lawyer in the house? So while it's not (so
far) _obvious_ that I have the right to photograph
random folks in the food court, it's not clear to me
yet that I don't, either. I _do_ concede that the
"public place" argument is not sufficient on its face
because Pennsic is a private event on private property.
Most of what I do, and what I'm best at, is candid
photography. Often I'm capturing a moment, and asking
permission beforehand will utterly change what I'm
trying to photograph. Sometimes walking up to someone
to ask permission will take long enough for the
tableau to evaporate. I take a chance and hope that
most of the people I photograph won't mind, and pray
that for the really good shots I'd like to publish
someday, I manage to track them down and negotiate a
model release.
(In the meantime, I skirt the edges of the law when I
show off my personal album and ask viewers to tell me
if they know how to track down any of the people in
there. I'm taking a chance, both of getting sued and
of making an enemy, but it's a calculated risk. If I
run into someone who objects to being in the album,
I'll remove their photo and try to smooth things over
as well as possible. Wish me luck. So far nobody
who's seen themselves in my album has been angry, and
some have been pleased enough to pay me for copies.)
On the other hand, when it _is_ feasible to ask
permission first, I often do so -- I might, if I'm
standing close enough (or if I want close-ups of
someone's garb, gear, henna art, piercings, musical
instruments or whatever), ask aloud, "Do you mind
stopping a moment so I can photograph you?" If I'm
farther away, I may merely make eye contact, wave the
camera, and wait for an answering nod, a pose and a
smile, or a headshake "no".
So yes, I do believe in asking permission beforehand
when doing so doesn't make the shot pointless, and I
do understand the limits of my rights regarding the
resulting image.
Bianca> I refuse to at any party where I've seen flashbulbs or
Bianca> camcorders. After all, I dance for myself, I dance
Bianca> for the music, and I dance for the people around me...
Bianca>
Bianca> NOT the audience later on the internet, NOT for that
Bianca> guy's drunk friends back home,
Bianca>
Bianca> and certainly NOT for posterity's sake. It's that
Bianca> simple.
Okay, I can understand this. I had a visceral
objection to the "that guy's drunk friends back home"
comment, but I'll try very hard to ignore that and
focus on the "not for posterity's sake" part. The
problem, as others have pointed out, is that without
knowing you and without having a chance to speak to
you before you start dancing, I don't know you feel
that way. You take an absolutist position that I
should _never_ photograph a dancer (or anyone else)
without receiving explicit permission first. I can
understand your position, but I keep hoping there's a
reasonable middle ground. That absolutist position
_really_ limits candid photography. In fact, it all
but eliminates it as an art form entirely.
(Aside: a still photo of your dance does not preserve
your dance for posterity -- the dance itself is still
ephemeral. One moment of it is captured to _signify_
and remind people of the dance. A videotape, of
course, is another matter. Nonetheless, this is
tangential to the fact of your not wishing to be
photographed...)
Once I know you and your preferences, I'm willing to
honour your request not to be photographed (though,
being human, there will be occasional lapses in
memory, which I shall try to make happen as seldom as
possible -- I've got a few personal friends who refuse
to be photographed as well.) Obviously, for you this
is not sufficient. I'm not sure where to start, so
I'll ask you while I ponder it: *Is* there any sort
of compromise *you* can imagine that will allow me
some reasonable chance of practicing my art (candid
photography) using as subjects the many people who
don't mind being photographed?
Bianca> Until they start outlawing filming and photographing
Bianca> at night and/or people start having the decency to ask
(As a tangential comment, I wonder at your inclusion
of the phrase "at night" here... Is it just because
that, being when most dancing occurs, is when it
affects you most?)
Okay, on to the use of flash:
Bianca> Firstly, flashbulbs are dangerous at night if you're
Bianca> dancing around a campfire and are suddenly instantly
Bianca> blinded. It ruins any medieval atmosphere and is
Bianca> generally annoying.
I'm not sure how _dangerous_ flash strobes are around
a campfire, but since I'll concede that they're
generally annoying and distract from the medieval
atmosphere, let's just take those as sufficient
reasons and consider the danger argument not worth
wrestling over right now.
There are two more problems with flash photography at
Pennsic, though they only apply some of the time:
first, as Yaakov pointed out, most small, built-in
flash units are useless at the distances I frequently
see people trying to use them, and secondly, part of
the magic of the image one (or at least _I_) wants to
capture is often the interesting lighting. Of course,
if someone wants a snapshot of a friend in their
spiffy outfit, doesn't care about moody nighttime
atmosphere, and is standing close enough for their
flash to be useful, those two problems go away and
we're back to the first two.
I use flash in two situations at Pennsic: trying to
photograph bats overhead in the scant few minutes at
dusk when I can see them well enough to focus (which I
do in my own camp, probably only distracting Cambion,
Bloodjack, and Mountain Confederation and that for a
very brief time), and, yes, Yaakov, the Viking boat
burning. (I'll come back to that later in this
message and hope I don't get chewed out or scowled at
too badly the next time I see you in person.) Ifwhen
I find a better place to try to shoot bats, and/or if
I manage to get a shot I like, I'll stop using flash
even for those few minutes at dusk.
The rest of the time, *I* find flash distracting,
disconcertingly like lightning, and a reminder of
modernity. I'd rather not contribute to the problem
as I'm wandering around, and as I've mentioned, the
ambient light is often a big part of what I'm trying
to photograph in the first place. So, except for the
Viking boat, I'm not part of _that_ problem. For
night at Pennsic, I shoot film speeds up to 12500 ASA
in order to avoid needing flash. (Yes, that's the
right number of zeroes. But it looks better when I
can get away with only 6400 ASA.)
(On many point-and-shoot cameras, there is a flash
mode button to select normal, fill-flash, redeye
reduction, or no flash. For subjects beyond flash
range, or to get a photo of the existing lighting,
turn off the flash and put the camera on some sort of
support. It needn't be a tripod; a beanbag is used by
many serious photographers for some shots.)
So I'd rather see flash photography minimized (I
almost said, "at night", but I even avoid using
fill-flash on brightly sunny days (to fill in shadows)
because I fear even that might be distracting), but
I'm uncomfortable with banning it entirely even though
it's the visual equivalent of drumming (i.e. the flash
is distracting to the folks in the next camp over). I
don't like it, but I'm not willing to say, "You have
to obtain gear like mine and know where to buy film
like mine and learn how to use it, and accept
red-tinted (from the firelight) photos of your friends
you don't get to see very often, because I find your
flash objectionable." Banning it at smaller events
doesn't bother me so much. Especially since, at
smaller events, one can go somewhere outside the event
to take pictures easily, and one is likely to have
time for some snapshots after the event ends as well.
Bianca> Besides, many parties like Men Without Pants were
Bianca> specifically disallowing photography and yet the
Bianca> camera-happy types were taking pictures anyway!
That is quite simply wrong, flash or no flash. Camp
organizers and party organizers have the right to set
rules like that and, as long as they're
announced/posted conspicuously, expect to have them
followed. :-(
I may be dismayed and disappointed to find that
photography is not permitted at a particular private
party (or concert or whatever), but I'll darned well
abide by it once I find out. (And it ought to be
posted conspicuously on the way in, printed on the
ticket stub, or mentioned by the greeter, so I'll find
out before I start shooting.)
Celestia> I usually turn down all requests for photos from
Celestia> persons I don't know now, and if I observe a "stealth
Celestia> photographer" aimed in my direction, I'll make some
Celestia> attempt to obscure myself in the shot.
If the stealth photographer is any good, you won't
know it until it's too late (if at all). If it's just
a random, not particularly stealthy photographer who
hasn't asked permission yet (and as noted above, I
sometimes fall into this category), obscuring yourself
is a suitable defense. Might I suggest attemping to
make eye contact and shaking your head, so that if the
photographer is polite enough to care what you think
he or she will realize that your maneuver was
intentional? That way, one hopes, you won't have to
keep on dodging that particular photographer over and
over again there.
Celestia> If you really want a photo for *research* purposes,
Celestia> you'll agree to handing your camera over to a friend
Celestia> of mine who will take a photo for you of the *dress*
Celestia> without my face in it.
No, I won't. *I'll* crop your face out of the photo
(in the viewfinder or in Photoshop), and either you'll
trust me to do so or you'll refuse me permission, but
I'm not going to hand over my camera to trust the
composition, focus, and exposure to someone who is to
me an unknown as a photographer. If I plan to publish
the photo, I'll ask for a model release or at least
verbal permission, and if you want to specify that
your face not be visible (whether it's visible on the
negative or not), it'll definitely be on paper ... and
if I violate that, you can sue me. (You won't get
much money, but you could make my life Hell. I'm not
interested in experiencing that particular Hell.)
Bianca> As for annoying, it's far more annoying to have
Bianca> someone take a picture of you without asking your
Bianca> permission first! If people asking for permission
Bianca> means interupting my dancing, that's fine cause it
Bianca> doesn't spoil the mood.
This is not a reasonable assumption for a photographer
to make, however. Many performers (myself included --
I am a musician) _would_ object to being interrupted
in the middle of a performance to be asked permission
to photograph! So if I don't ask, I'll anger and
annoy folks like you, and if I do ask, I'll anger a
whole lot of other people, and if I don't shoot at
all (even with the intent of asking permission after
the fact), many photos that _would_ have been
acceptable to the subjects don't get made.
Now, you've made it obvious that you don't
particularly value my art, at least as it pertains to
Pennsic, so perhaps you don't care about that. Please
try to understand that I _do_ care, and that I'm
trying to find the middle ground, the strategy that's
going to be acceptable _most_ of the time.
Bianca> We're not discussing taking pictures of someone
Bianca> standing there juggling, something they wouldn't mind
Bianca> having half the world, SCA or not, seeing. I was
Bianca> discussing taking pictures of a woman dancing,
Bianca> something very expressive and potentially erotic.
Bianca> Something that is private. If she chooses to share it
Bianca> with the people at the party that evening, that's
Bianca> great.
Okay, I think this touches more on the real issues
central to this discussion. (Especially since you
later said:
Bianca> Do what you want with court, battles, etc. The
Bianca> particular instance I brought up was a woman doing
Bianca> middle eastern dancing, something the mundane world
Bianca> sees as erotic and exotic. At least for me as a
Bianca> woman, there is quite a difference between a fighter
Bianca> in armor being photoed during the day and a scantily
Bianca> clad dancer being photoed at night whilst doing a
Bianca> shimmy of her bust.
which suggests that it's not _simply_ a matter of
general photography.)
(BTW, does it make a difference if it's a man dancing
instead of a woman? How does it affect this
discussion if a fighter pipes up objecting to being
photographed?)
There are some actions which clearly feel "more
private" or "more personal" than others. Dancing is
not _obviously_ such an action in general, though I
_can_ certainly understand how it is so for you. I
will admit that I seem to have different approaches to
privacy and intimacy than you do, which may make
communication on this issue a bit confusing, but let's
stumble on and see what we manage to make each other
understand, shall we?
Part of my confusion starts in the fact that I'm not
likely to share something with a party filled with
strangers that I'm not willing to share with strangers
in general. It comes down to different levels or
privacy, or rather, different levels of intimacy.
Yes, there's a difference between doing something
around a campfire full of SCAdians and doing it on a
streetcorner, but I'm all too conscious of having an
audience at all, so the more intensely personal stuff
gets saved for an audience I know personally. From
your comments, it sounds as though that's not true for
you, though you still do have these different levels
of intimacy/trust/privacy.
Now, that having been said, there are _still_ some
actions I would not presume are completely public just
because they're done in front of people not known to
the subject personally. Take breast-feeding, for
example: as much as a truly sweet "Madonna and child"
image it might make, I would be uncomfortable
photographing that without permission, and would in
fact be uncomfortable _asking_ for permission. (I did
once photograph a mother breast feeding accidentally,
as I could not tell that's what was happening from my
angle. Fortunately the camera could not see it
either.)
Or someone of either sex, clearly inebriated, acting
in a way which I fear they might find embarrasing
later.
It's just that dancing in front of strangers, which
strikes my mind as a performance (though sometimes,
yes, an erotic one) when I see it, doesn't usually
trip the "this is personal" alert in my mind, while it
obviously _is_ personal for _you_ in that way. So now
I'm wondering: do _most_ dancers feel that way?
Morgan> Y'know, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the
Morgan> Rialto, but I'd have to guess that once you make the
Morgan> concious, willful decision to dance / perform in
Morgan> public, be it at an SCA event or on the street corner,
Morgan> privacy is no longer an issue.
That's not obvious, due to the legally private nature
of Pennsic (and, I presume, other SCA events). But
still...
Morgan> You have elected to make a public spetacle of
Morgan> yourself.
For _some_ value of "public", yes, though it's not
clear exactly what that value is, and it appears
there's some significant disagreement on it.
Certainly she's done that to _some_ degree, and knows
it, and is not asking everyone present she doesn't
know to avert their eyes; but there is dispute as to
where the line is drawn, and on which side of that
line cameras fall. I know what makes sense to _me_,
but it's obviously not obvious to everyone else, and
therefore is not obviously objectively correct.
Morgan> Also, to jump to the immediate conclusion that any and
Morgan> all photographers are immediately *pornographers* or
Morgan> at least wannabes is rather judgemental, if not
Morgan> prejudicial.
I agree that this pushed some of my hot buttons. To
be nitpickingly fair, she basically said that we're
all _potential_ pornographers until she knows us and
knows otherwise, but she said it in such a way as to
make us (or at least me, but I bet I'm not the only
one) feel as though we'd all been tarred with that
brush. An unfortunate choice of phrasing, as it
appears to have spurred unneeded hostility that's
getting in the way of really hearing each other. (I
know I had to do the "sleep on it before you react
publically" bit because of that.)
And yes, as someone pointed out, it is an awful lot
like the hurtful and inflammatory "All men are
potential rapists" rhetoric which, while technically
correct in context (actually, it should be "all
humans"), tends to add much more heat than light to a
discussion and get in the way of useful discourse.
A brief aside:
Morgan> Could it be that the photographer found her to be
Morgan> attractive in an asthetic way, or perhaps he wanted to
Morgan> capture her performance as part of his Pennsic memory?
I'm sure those are the reasons most Pennsic photos are
taken, but she has already stated that she "does not
dance for posterity". Hmm. A case of conflicting
goals.
Morgan> That is why I used to take Pennsic photos, because
Morgan> memories fade, and the pictures help bring them back
Morgan> to life.
I also photograph Pennsic for three more reasons: to
share my memories with friends unable to attend; to
show non-SCAdian friends and relatives, "This is what
I do, *this_is_what_it's_like*"; and with the hope of
being able to obtain a model release and sell reprints
(or to sell reprints to the subjects themselves). The
third reason really doesn't work very well, but the
second one is the most important anyhow.
Continuing on...
Yaakov> 1) It seems to me Bianca has a perfect right not to
Yaakov> dance if she doesn't feel comfortable doing it for the
Yaakov> camera. That's a personal choice.
I sincerely hope _that_ much is not in doubt! Bianca
stated her reason as an example of why someone might
choose not to dance. It really doesn't matter what
that reason is -- she always has the right to not
dance. Where this has gone from there is based on
reactions to her strongly stated reason and the ideas
surrounding it, not the question of whether she has a
right to not dance.
Yaakov> 2) I share the feeling that flash photography at
Yaakov> events is a bad idea. I bitterly re[s]ented the endless
Yaakov> flashes at the burning of the viking longship on
Yaakov> Saturday night.
Noted. While I can take some comfort in knowing that
I was not alone, I do need to rethink how valuable I
think those shots were. May I be permitted another
brief digression, this one to examine why I considered
that (rightly or mistakenly) a special case?
That event, the Viking boat burning, is an especially
signficiant, powerful, and uncommon event. That
_both_ makes it more important to record _and_ more
important not to spoil in the act of recording. I
wanted (perhaps selfishly, as an artist) to make an
image of that particular magic. This was an image I
felt it was _really_ important to be able to take
home, to show the things I haven't managed to
communicate as strongly as I'd like in music and
poetry yet.
Most things at Pennsic, I can photograph by available
light, but taking a photo of something that is burning
presents special challenges. If the flames are
exposed correctly, nearby material will be too dark
and the photo will essentially be of nothing _but_ the
flames. If a long enough exposure to get the boat
right is used, the flames will be "burned out" on the
photo. (Note that there may have been a brief period
when the flames were small enough to get an acceptable
image anyhow, but I doubt it -- and I'll find out when
I get my film developed, as I shot more non-flash
frames than ones with flash. It's also possible that
I'll later decide that I like a flames-only shot
better than a "properly lit" one, and feel really
foolish.) So in the interest of recording this image,
I tried to throw enough light at the boat that the
boat itself would be lit only a little less brightly
than the flames themselves. A way to do this without
the use of flash would have been to burn the boat
while there was still light from the sky as well as
the flames. But that's not when the ceremony was.
I made a judgement call that a) I was willing to break
my own rules because I wanted _this_ image that badly,
and b) I'd probably get away with it because so many
other people would also be using flash that I wouldn't
be "that lone idiot with the flash". (A friend who
has not posted on this thread emailed me privately to
say that he waited until others started using flash
before using his, I presume for a similar reason.)
That was my thinking; that was my judgement. It may
have been a bad decision -- I'm not quite certain yet.
I'll probably keep chewing on that for a while.
Yaakov> As an initial matter, most of the flashes were utterly
Yaakov> useless, since the ship was burning out on the lake at
Yaakov> least 150 ft away and the average flash does not work
Yaakov> for distances above ten feet.
As noted earlier, yes, most little pop-flashes won't
reach that far unless they're a lot stronger than I've
been led to believe. (If anyone _did_ get a decently
flash-illuminated shot at that range with one of
those, I'd be _extremely_ interested to find out.) I
was throwing a _lot_ of light out there _and_ using
fast film (1600 in one camera, 3200 in another (and
12500 in a third, but I don't think I used flash with
that one)), in hopes of making the flash reach that far.
So my flashes were, I hope, not wasted. On the other
hand, mine were probably also that much more annoying
for being brighter. :-(
(How much light? One unit was rated at about 50 feet
with 800-speed film at the f-stops I was using, and I
augmented that with two smaller strobes that fired at
the same time. Yes, I was the bloody big flash of
light over on the Ealdormere side of the lake -- mea
culpa. I'm having second thoughts about it now, a bit
late.)
Yaakov> More importantly, it kept me (and others around me,
Yaakov> who also complained) from ever really appreciating the
Yaakov> beauty of the event or even seeing it properly. The
Yaakov> literally non-stop flashes
We do have a difference in perception here. I did not
percieve the flashes as non-stop -- I recall longish
periods without any flashes going off -- but then
again, my attention was so tightly focussed on the
boat that I may have simply not noticed any flashes
not directly across the lake from me. If the flashes
truly interfered with your ability to see it properly,
well I can only hope it wasn't just my big one doing
that, so that I can "hide in group guilt" instead of
feeling like the clod solely responsible for ruining
it for you (and others). :-(
Yaakov> had a blinding effect and
Yaakov> unutterably altered the feeling from something magical
Yaakov> to a tourist attraction.
As is probably obvious, it didn't ruin the feeling for
me -- I very quickly found myself shooting through
tears as I thought about those lost to me, and caught
up in the sounds of others' reactions and tributes. I
also took my hands off the camera long enough to play
the "Jo-Bug Jig"[2] on guitar as a tribute to a dead
friend. Being wrapped up in my own head undoubtedly
made me even less aware of the effect I was having on
others. :-(
Yaakov> I recognize that making a visual record of the SCA is
Yaakov> a valuable goal, and that people wish to preserve
Yaakov> their memories, but some balance needs to be reached.
While I'm happy to see support for the notion that a
visual record is a valuable goal, I also agree
wholeheartedly that balance is needed. And I've found
points of balance that feel right to _me_, but if I'm
way out of line with mainstream thought within the
Society, I need to adapt.
I've mentioned mostly avoiding flash because I
consider it distracting, and distractingly modern.
That's really an extension of this:
This event is not here for my photography. It's
here for all these people (and me) to enjoy, and
my photographic opportunities are a side effect.
So I'd better try not to get in the way of others'
enjoyment of the event much.
That's not limited to Pennsic, or SCA and Markland
events in general. It also applies to concerts in
mundania, and in fact, a whole lot of events. Unless
I've been specifically asked (and hopefully paid) to
record an event, I try to stay out of the way as much
as possible. If I _am_ specifically there to record
it, I try to get a feel beforehand for how obtrusive
I'm allowed to be. That means not pushing in front of
other audience members, trying not to distract other
audience members, not making other people go out of
their way for me. It also means (in mundania) asking
whether _flash_ photography is okay after I've gotten
permission for shooting at all. Sometimes the answer
is "no".
Obviously, I'm not absolutist about this. I make
judgement calls, deciding whether a situation is worth
bending my own rules for (but I still heed event
rules) and then how high the risk of upsetting someone
as a consequence is. (And, being human, sometimes
I'll judge wrong. I try to learn from it and see if I
can avoid the same mistake later.)
Hal> It is my own practice to try to be unobtrusive with a
Hal> camera. I'm not up there shoving it in someone's face
Hal> or trying to get where I can shoot, but blocking
Hal> others. I work from the back of the crowd, shoot
Hal> around or over people--or just don't shoot.
*nod*
Hal> I'm willing to help educate others in how to do so.
Okay, me too. But are the folks who most need
education going to realize they need it?
Bianca> I really wonder what many of the shutterbugs would do
Bianca> if the cameras were turned on them at times they were
Bianca> engaging in self-expression.
:-) Been there, done that. Most recently (not
counting Pennsic) I was photographed while I was
photographing a friend's band. Actually, I get
photographed by strangers a _lot_. (And also by
friends -- the friends occasionally give me copies. I
never find out what the strangers do with the photos.)
You see, my mundane attire is probably more
conspicuous than my medieval garb[1]. It gets me a lot
of attention, some of it pleasant, some of it
unpleasant, and none of it the reason for the way I
dress. It's just one of those side effects I live
with. I don't know whether the folks photographing me
are keeping a memory of an image that appealed to them
or made them think, whether they think I'm hot,
whether they're telling their friends, "Hey, look at
this *freak*!", thinking of me as a stock part of the
Baltimore scenery (or wherever I am when the photo is
taken), creating art, or just telling someone else,
"See, I'm not imagining it -- he really does exist."
I just don't know.
Sometimes I wish I were unobtrusive, but I'm not
willing to change who I am (or pretend to be someone
else) to achieve that. *shrug* I've learned to
accept it.
Further, I'm a performer (though my performance garb
is usually less conspicuous, in its setting, than my
everyday clothing). I get photographed on stage
(often without being aware of it). I get photographed
coming off the stage. I get photographed walking
around an event between sets. I get photographed on
my way to gigs because I'm carrying an oud or a guitar
and might be somebody famous (I'm not). I get
photographed in train stations and airports because
I'm distinctive and carrying an instrument. I get
people wanting to pose with me while someone takes our
picture (randomly on the street or in an airport).
I get photographed a _*LOT*_. Sometimes it's kind of
cool and I might ham it up a bit. Sometimes it's a
mild annoyance that I figure isn't worth getting upset
about because it only takes a fraction of a second, so
I smile for my audience and then move on. Most of the
time it's just _there_, of no particular significance
to me. (Though I must say I think a few of the photos
friends have made of me are actually pretty cool. And
yes, in some of those photos I've been scantily clad
or engaged in erotic behaviour, but yes Bianca, the
scantily clad and erotic ones were taken by people I
knew at least on the acquaintance level.)
So there I was at Baltimore's "Harborplace"
amphitheatre on the inner harbour, making pictures,
when out of the corner of my eye I saw an older
gentleman with a camera pointed my direction. I
assumed that I had backed into his path while he was
shooting something else, but when I looked startled
and moved, he said, "I just wanted a picture of the
artist at work." I thought, "Okay, fair is fair -- no
problem with that," and went back to what I was doing.
When he finished, I gave him a friendly wave and
forgot about him until later. (I would like to see
that photo though ... as long as the angle doesn't
make me look fat.)
Wilson> I have one particularly lovely one of the the
Wilson> West Royal Pavillion taken solely by moonlight....
E. Levin> Cool. And the West Royal Pavillion doesn't have rights
E. Levin> that you're violating. Wonderful.
Uh ... is that pavillion distinctive? Recognizeable
as being _that_ pavillion? If so, to legally publish
the photo you need a "propertly release". Just like a
model release, but for things, signed by the owner of
the object or animal in question.
Legally, the same issues arise as for people. The
photographer owns the image, but the subject, or the
owner of a non-human subject, owns the likeness that
is contained in the image. Things get a bit murky
regarding buildings as backdrops for street scenes or
in skyline photos, but there's the nutshell version.
That having been said, no, he's not terribly *likely* to
get sued for publishing it without permission, but the
owners could sue him if they wanted to.
Does that mean that we shouldn't go around
photographing campsites and gates? It's that balance
thing again, and expectations...
Todric> Taking something without permission of the owner (even
Todric> a photograph) is theft, pure and simple, and no
Todric> rationalizing will ever make the contrary true.
Sorry, but you're mistaken. One does not actually
"take" a photograph, idiom notwithstanding. One
_makes_ a photograph. _Publishing_ a photo without
permission (and there's a lot that counts as
publishing) is stealing. Merely making the photograph
is not. (At least under US law.)
There may be other reasons not to photograph someone,
but the particular reasoning you've just given is
wrong.
Todric> A few years ago at Pennsic, to a round of applause
Todric> from the onlookers, I took a cam-corder away from a
Todric> "gentleman" who was using it at the Swimming Hole (he
Todric> had it on shore, hidden under a towel).
I think we'll all agree that his actions crossed the
line, but we've not yet reached a consensus on exactly
where the line _is_. A concealed camcorder at the
classic swimming hole is sleazy however you slice it.
(On the other hand, I could see carrying a camera down
there _openly_ and saying, "I beg your pardons, but
could I possibly impose on you all to indulge me in a
photograph? Could I ask the folks who don't want to
be in it to please move out of the frame for a minute
or so?" then, if people are willing to comply (and it
_would_ be an imposition, and reasonable for someone
to refuse), taking the shot, and then thanking them
and immediately either leaving or conspicuously
putting the camera away. I could see it, but I'm not
sure I have quite enough chutzpah to do it.)
Todric> If Common Sense and Common Courtesy don't prevail,
Todric> Common Outrage may have to suffice.
Let us hope we can reach something close enough to
agreement that that is not often needed.
======================================================
So to sum up:
The legal right to privacy in the US does not
extend to an expectation not to be photographed in
public, but it does require permission before a
photo is published for non-news purposes;
Since Pennsic is a private event, it's not obvious
that the preceeding paragraph answers much;
Various parts of Pennsic _feel_ "public" to many
people, and they act accordingly;
Some people do not want to be photographed at all,
others do not want to be photographed while doing
certain things in view of strangers, some enjoy
being photographed, some don't care, some just
want to be asked first, some don't want to be
_interrupted_ to be asked, some don't care where
their likeness appears, some are very picky about
how and where their image is published;
Most people don't completely understand the legal
issues and we've got a few different directions
from which we approach the social/courtesy issues;
Playing strictly by the laws _and_ assuming
everyone needs to be treated according to the most
restrictive set of preferences quite nearly
destroys creative photography at Pennsic, and
severely constrains and impedes what's left;
At least some people see value in a visual record
of our activities;
Balance between the two absolutist extreme
positions is neeed -- something in between "No,
you can't shoot candid photos," and "I can point
my camera wherever the Hell I please so don't tell
me what to do";
Among us, we have differing notions of intimacy,
personal trust, comfort with being photographed,
and expectations of privacy, which occasionally
make it a little harder to understand where each
other are coming from (to the point of seeing each
others' requests as absurdly unreasonable at
tmes); and
There exist some photographers who are assholes,
in addition to however many who aren't (though
different people have different criteria for what
counts).
Off to the side, we have:
Many people find flash photography annoying and
distracting and "mood breaking", and some find it
dangerous around campfires and/or likely to induce
health problems;
Photographers should attempt to be unobtrusive and
not interfere with others' experience of the
event or performers' ability to perform;
There exist some photographers who are assholes,
in addition to however many who aren't (popping a
flash in a performer's face, elbowing other
spectators aside, etc.);
Further compounding the obtrusiveness issue, there
are photographers whose lack of knowledge or lack
of decent equipment contributes to their
inappropriate use of flash;
_I_ don't feel comfortable entirely banning flash
photography at Pennsic as much as I generally
dislike it, because not everyone is trying to do
the same kinds of photography that I am, and it's
often not convenient to step off site for a moment
to take a snapshot of a buddy;
I contributed to the problem on Saturday night;
and
Many people are also annoyed by inconsiderate
drummers but are more vehement on both sides of
the photo debate. (Well that's where this started,
right? Hey, don't look at me like that -- I drum
a little, but I mostly play melody on Eastern stuff.
Though my oud has never gotten me a date...))
I really do hope that some reasonable balances can be
found that most of us can live with, and that the
folks who persist in being sorely aggrieved will be
few in number. Slinging absolutist rhetoric back and
forth and spending all our time looking for logical
weaknesses to exploit in each others' prose instead of
trying to understand each other is about as useful as
... oh, most gun-control or abortion debates, where
each side talks _past_ the other.
So how _do_ we find a reasonable middle ground?
Okay, I've tied it up. *Now* you can flame me (or
better yet, calmly point out what I haven't
understood, or make suggestions as to how we go about
solving this).
-- Arthur D'Glenn,
Minstrel and photographer
[1] Do I need to provide any more information that
that? Probably not...
[2] If you're curious, sheet music for the jig can be
found at http://www.radix.net/~dglenn/words/jo-bug-jig.html
John Husvar
"D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <dgl...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote in message
news:9m4rn8$rt3$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
>
> Okay, I've tied it up. *Now* you can flame me (or
> better yet, calmly point out what I haven't
> understood, or make suggestions as to how we go about
> solving this).
>
>
> -- Arthur D'Glenn,
> Minstrel and photographer
Phew!
Nice wrap up of most of the major problems of photographers' and
photojournalists' ethics! (with a nice tie-in to Pennsic-specific, private
vs. public-event issues)
Or as my old Journalism Ethics prof once said: "Very thoughtful -- for a
snapper." (He was joking too.:)
You should submit this to Columbia Journalism Review. (with appropriate
permissions, of course.:)
Very few people do (or can) understand just what is happening in the mind of
a serious photographer or photojournalist at work. The image is everything
at the specific moment the shutter is triggered. Publication and/or privacy
issues usually surface after the fact.
It can be difficult to recognize the concerns of subjects. It is essential,
but it can be difficult.
The best we can hope for are balance, mutual respect, and minimal
obtrusiveness.
I no longer even take my cameras to events: I _know_ I'll have little or no
thought of anything but the images when shooting.
Why photographers get: screamed at, shot at, hit, kicked, run over, and
occasional awards. :)
Best,
Johan