Dear Colleagues,

Happy to share with you my November 2022 detailed monthly report focusing on my overall earnings for the month, including a new book cover sale making it four months in a row! I�ll also discuss why I�ve decided to re-start uploading to Robert Harding. Lastly, I�ll tell my side of the story of a recent unpleasant encounter as a humble street photographer. Let�s get started!

Hope you had a good month.

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/11/30/november-2022-brutally-honest-earnings-report/

Alex

It�s the new �political correctness gone mad" (Stuart Lee has a great routine on this). It is just a thought-terminating clich� at this point with no meaning any more.

I assume the author isn�t a native English speaker and has seen lots of people using it on-line. I wouldn't use it unless you want to take a political stance. It has all sorts of connotations about your world view.

Allthough you may have the law on your side, I can definitely imagine some people are not that keen on being photographed.
For example:
- people cheating on their spouses
- endangered women that fled their husband and don't want to be found
- illegal migrant workers
- criminals
- etc...

or just regular people, going about their business, that do not like ending up in some magazine (editorial shot) just because they were on the street and you take a photo and try to sell it, without them knowing about it or having the abillity to approve it or not.

So if you say: 'If you don�t want me to take your picture when in public then just stay at home!' then the same goes for you. 'Don't take photographs of people if you can't handle a not so friendly reaction to your action!'
And then you only got some words so not that big a deal. Other irritated people might react even less friendly.

Allthough you may have the law on your side, I can definitely imagine some people are not that keen on being photographed.
For example:
- people cheating on their spouses
- endangered women that fled their husband and don't want to be found
- illegal migrant workers
- criminals
- etc...

or just regular people, going about their business, that do not like ending up in some magazine (editorial shot) just because they were on the street and you take a photo and try to sell it, without them knowing about it or having the abillity to approve it or not.

So if you say: 'If you don�t want me to take your picture when in public then just stay at home!' then the same goes for you. 'Don't take photographs of people if you can't handle a not so friendly reaction to your action!'
And then you only got some words so not that big a deal. Other irritated people might react even less friendly.

That's fair enough. With rights as a photographer come obligations. There are certain situations that I refuse to photograph in public without asking first for permission, including:

- Children and minors. Parents can get upset but even beyond the point, lots of publications are reluctant to publish such photos anyway so it's a lose/lose situation for me;
- Disabled people;
- Homeless but it really depends...if I do photograph them I will always give them money or food. I have many images of homeless which are good sellers and people have criticized me for it which is fair enough. I think it's an important topic that the media can highlight - example below.
- People who clearly don't want to take their pics and have expressly indicated that. Why insist? You've highlighted that they may be illegal or whatnot or criminals in hiding, or victims of domestic abuse, etc. To insist means that the situation can only escalate and ruin my day.

Everything else is open game but I still do my best to follow local laws here in Portugal and try not take portraits of people in public without their permission. If I'm in the UK, which I go once in a while, I can and will take portraits in public unless the above apply. I was in Dubai and shooting at the Dubai Mall and even if I got some cool shots of people, including women, it was probably not a great idea in hindsight!

It all comes down to common sense and I'm not about to risk my physical nor mental well-being (or damage to my gear) for what will likely be subscription sales. I can protect myself physically if need be and would do just fine one to one but in street fights against 2 or more I would stand no chance.

As for the "woke" thing, probably wrong usage in this case. It's more of a "snowflake" attitude from the cafe worker to being overly sensitive about something which a reasonable person would ignore.

I appreciate all your candid commentary, but saying that someone who doesn't want to be photographed in public is a "snowflake" or is "overly sensitive" is unfair. Nowadays people are afraid of stalkers or what someone might do with their photograph on social media.  Obviously photographing people in public with a big camera is creepy, and your dialog with the person who objected shows that you are part of the problem - you got defensive and responded in a negative way.  The problem is with you - you should have apologized for disturbing them and moved on, period.  It doesn't matter if they are in the background, blurry or will be cropped out later, if it makes them uncomfortable - even if you are legally entitled to do it - then apologize and go on your way.  Wouldn't you wonder if someone was walking around taking pictures of you?

Why on Earth would you use a tilt-shift lens to take a picture at a flea market?  Any possible problems with perspective in such an image could be corrected easily in PS.  It looks like you have Canon gear.  When I go out and don't want to attract attention I use one of their pancake lenses - the 24 MM would be as good or better than your tilt-shift lens and much less likely to ignite someone's ire.  If you have a full-frame camera and can't use those then a small wide-angle lens should do.  My guess is the person thought you might be law enforcement or something like that - maybe they were selling stolen goods and didn't want anyone to provide documentation.

I don't know where you're learning your vocabulary, but "woke" and "snowflake" are terms I associate with right-wing nutcases where I live.  I would read some better sources and then maybe you won't have such a negative view of people who don't want to be stalked in public.

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on December 01, 2022, 21:27

Why on Earth would you use a tilt-shift lens to take a picture at a flea market?  Any possible problems with perspective in such an image could be corrected easily in PS.  It looks like you have Canon gear.  When I go out and don't want to attract attention I use one of their pancake lenses - the 24 MM would be as good or better than your tilt-shift lens and much less likely to ignite someone's ire.  If you have a full-frame camera and can't use those then a small wide-angle lens should do.  My guess is the person thought you might be law enforcement or something like that - maybe they were selling stolen goods and didn't want anyone to provide documentation.

I was shooting for a book cover, so wanted some creative focus on the goods. Also liked the man's shadow on the right, so was aiming to include his shadow there as he could be part of the story (the man who aggressively approached me within a few seconds of taking that pic). Was shooting with a Nikon D800 with the 24mm Tilt-Shift.

Yes, he could have been selling stolen goods, I suppose that may explain his (over)reaction.

All these encounters are pushing me towards upgrading to a full-frame mirrorless and smaller lens. Or just shooting with the latest iPhone!

Next time why not explain to the owners/proprietors what you are doing and would they mind if you took photos for an "art project" or what ever.

If they so no then no loss.  If they say yes everyone is happy.

When a good guy is lying, a bad guy is standing...