Hi Dave

Just a quick question. This webiste is hosted by blogomania. So do they provide all of these windows etc? You mention changes made, is that to the actual site?

If what we see is this, how do you pay because it seems to be in dollars and what about your web address is this via them or do you gain that from elsewhere?

Cheers

It's funny. I was in downtown Atlanta, Georgia taking some shots of the buildings, sculptures, and street art when I security guard for one the buildings came out and said I needed 'permission' to photograph the building. I just didn't get it, it was a Sunday afternoon and I wasn't trying to photograph through the windows or anything but rather just of the architecture and water fountains.

As for this shot, I like the vibrance of the colors along with the textures of the rust. Nicely done.

Ah, asking for permission, don't you just hate it. I for sure do. In Calgary, where there are tons of photographers and photojournalists roaming around (this is due to our colleges/univerisity offering such programs), the rule of thumb is such: If they're too young, ask their mom (or parents).

I've never taken a single photo of children out in public. I asked once, an the person simply replied "no". So I've never gotten the courage to ask again. I'll just stick with unanimate objects and people I know. And I agree with Brad as well, a security officer came out and told me not to take photos of the building he was at, since it was a government building. I wasn't even close to the building and was only taking photos of the architecture.

Oh well, what can you do?

As for your photograph today, I like the vibrancy of the red and the rust on the poles. What is that exactly? I've never seen anything like that over here before.

quick question...what city do you take your pics in?

Oh good grief! What's next? Buildings with agents? Brad, I'm curious to know how your episode ended. I had a similar issue in a public space I was trying to shoot (and ended up getting it "on the run"). You can see the shot on my site today, but if I wasn't so worried about getting the shot off, I might have stayed 'round to contest the logic (or lack thereof) of this "no photography" assertion in a building I pay for daily.

That said Dave, I'm happy to see no people today and an inanimate shot instead. I love the color in this shot--red on blue always works. Just wish the rusted poll was sharper. It appears to be due to light (versus focus/ap), but I bet that rust has more of a story to tell.

At least in the States, you don't need permission to photograph buildings and other landmarks, but don't be surprised if you get questioned (or even detained) for doing so. Since 9-11, and with alarming frequency, anybody with a camera is subject to harassment. In many cases, it is due to overzealous building security who are ignorant of the law. In other cases, it is flagrant racial profiling. All to maintain a flimsy shell of security rather than actually providing the real thing. For an excellent example of student photographer's ordeal, check out this blog: http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com

Thinh: it's a railway signal. Most UK signals are now lights, but there are still some of the old semaphore signals around. These are at the throat of Blackpool station, along with another four or five, and I guess they may just be decorative. Anyway, when the light's right I'll take a shot of all of them together.

sm: mostly Blackpool, UK.

djn1: In response to your final comment on yesterdays image, and the validity of photograping existing art, can I say that your point is valid, but I think to a point. Straight-forward architectural images are an obvious example of simply capturing an image of an existing 'work of art' if you will. Not to say that there's not skill in such photography, but the subject is the art in such a situation.

In the context of your observation yesterday, how would you consider todays image? Obviously man made objects, yet largely not the point of the image, in my opinion. The reds, the rust, the lines themselves without reference to their origin - these are what make the image.

On a more technical point on todays image - are the vignettes (?) in the top left & bottom right corners intentional?

Ben: I agree, there's a world of difference between today's and yesterday's shot in terms of content and who it should be ascribed to. As for the vignettes: I meant to mention these in the description. This was shot through a fence and the vignettes are the blurred edges of the bars. It wasn't intentional, but I like the result.

Brian: I suppose I was lucky because by the time the security guard approached me, I was wrapping up. As a result, I got most of the shots I wanted so I just asked him how I would go about getting permission and then just said 'thank you' and I was on my way. It was pretty ridiculous but I didn't feel like making a scene, especially because I was done shooting anyway. I would post links to the a few of the shots I used from the shoot but my server is down for one reason or another.

I was at the Lincoln Center in NYC with my son's school trip when a security guard approached and asked me what my "purpose" was. "Taking pictures of our group..." He said, "Will it be published...." and on and on. In the end, he told me the whole entire outside scene of buildings and lanscape was "copywrited" but I would be allowed to take pictures of the school group if it wouldn't be published anywhere, even including the school annual.

So, a copywrited "scene ?

I completely share your frustration and irritation of being approached in relationship to the photographs that you may be taking.

I also understand why some people feel they have to do it, but the world seems to have gone paedophile crazy, assuming that everyone who takes pictures of children must have some criminal intent.

My wife is a schoolteacher and I regulary help out at school events like football and school plays. It is a sad fact that virtually no parents now take photos of their children in these circumstances.

Anyway thats my rant over with. Todays image is cool. I like it because it is simple and capyures a bit of old technology that is still operating in a high tech world. In the UK it will have particular relevence because train signals are never far away from the public spotlight.

Hi Dave. Do these signals still work do you know? I like the angle you have taken this shot. If it had been vertical it would have been too much a "record" of the equipment - something like a trainspotter might have taken. As it is I like the vignetting although it slightly disturbs me that it is not at all four corners...

I think I too would have been irritated by being asked about having a camera outside a school. At least with a digital camera you can prove innocence by showing the captures! HOWEVER... as you remark it is comforting that the school has the welfare of the children at the forefront. Discomforting as it may seem, there ARE some very sick people out there and can you just imagine an article on Today with John Humphries** asking pointed questions about why the school did not challenge a photographer who went on to commit some obcene criminality?

What a world we live in today

** Sorry to the international viewers. "Today" is the flagship BBC morning radio news and current affairs program and John Humphries is the principal presenter.
Is Blackpool a city?

Ben, I took it that the vignettes were intentional... I hope Dave proves me right or there is something seriously wrong with his new lens esp. since it is designed for a 35mm neg rather than the smaller sensor on the 20D!! :^)
A

Adrian: no, Blackpool isn't a city - no cathedral.

And I've already explained the vignettes ;-)

Ooops. So you have. I MUST learn to READ!!!

Nah, I need to learn to write more loudly ;-)

I'm a sucker for railroad stuff of all sorts - I especially like the composition on this one. It's nice also to see how the business end of that signal is kept bright and shiny while the rest decays in the elements, showing that it's an active signal and no some defunct relic.

As for a copyright on a scene or a grouping of physical structures, here's what the US Copyright Office says about it on their fairly-new Form VA, used for registering works of the visual arts, including architectural items:

'Architectural Works: Copyright protection extends to the design of buildings created for the use of human beings. Architectural works created on or after December 1, 1990, or that on December 1, 1990, were unconstructed and embodied only in unpublished plans or drawings are eligible.'

So, no way, no how - Lincoln Center most definitely pre-dates this whole business.

The red definately makes a focal point. The ladder leads nicely. The rest of the unorganized lines serve only as balance and movement. The darkened spot at the lower right really seems important to anchoring an endless sky.

Lovely Shot.

The 'Permission to shoot' thing has been discussed a lot over at dpreview - some of the American commentators have some real 'scare' stories of having been reported whilst using their camera near a beach, resulting in police attendance and etc etc etc - Johns' comment re. parents not taking pictures of their children rings very true with me; I always take the camera when we go to the park/swings - and I am always (so far) the only one that does...

It doesn't bother me that other people are bothered, it bothers me if they are prejudiced and ignorant at the same time;) Were I to see someone taking pictures of *my* children, I'd ask to see them and for copies! :) (As I have done for others, actually)

I don't want to obviously turn Daves blog into a discussion on 'Permission to shoot' but having spent a long time as a Police Officer (UK) I feel that people have become paranoid about this issue regarding paedophilia.

Firstly, yes there are many such perverted people knocking about and from all walks of life as well. However I believe that the vast majority of them can and prefer to access suitable material for their sick needs without putting themselves in a situation where they have to publicly take these pictures themselves. I mean, you can walk into many large stores and take brochures which will invarably show children modelling clothes etc.

I was onced called to a park (London) where a man was allegedly taking photographs of children. The allegation was very convincing, and to cut a long story short I had no option but to take this man home and after an emergency warrant was issued I turned his house upside down (and I mean upside down)

I found nothing but innocent photos. Sure, some of them were of children but it was 100% obvious that this guy was not engaging in anything criminal. I felt sorry for him and his family even though I was only doing my job.

I think the point Dave is making is that when people approach you it feels like an assumption of guilt is being made. Actually here's a thing: given the fact that millions of Digital Cameras are sold each week you hardly see any evidence of it unless you are in an obvious tourist or holiday attraction.

Thanks Dave

very nice colors here
this 100mm lens is very crisp...

(John, after reading this stuff, I'll think twice about photographing children in the street. Heck, I'll even give up taking pictures of my own kids now, just to be sure :) )

Love the contrast of the red signal over the blue sky. The image has a dramatic appereance, due to the subjective copmposition and the black shades at the corners. Where do they come from?

oops, I read now the comment on the vignettes. I like the effect, too. Cheers!

I often go out photographing in my lunch break. Because I'm male, dressed in a business-like manner and carrying a fairly serious looking camera, people seem to assume that I'm either an estate agent or someone from the local planning department. I live and work in small towns, and so the 'small town' mentality doesn't help. I rarely photograph people and studiously avoid pointing my camera at children, so I haven't aroused suspicions of a more serious nature.

I'm always polite to people, but I must confess I find it irritating that I can't enjoy a perfectly legal activity without being hassled.

I don’t get it, actually - you *want* the school to be vigilant against perverts, but you *don’t want* them to act? It’s a small price to pay for the protection of children, surely, that you were (apparently) politely asked about your reason for being there, and that your reason was accepted when given...

Personally I find your attitude very strange...

Other than that, I like the shot

I've been lurking here for some time now and enjoy immensely the images you post - always interesting, frequently provoking, certainly inspiring. I like this one less than many of your other images and it's taken me a while to work out why. I think its too cluttered for my taste - the stuff at the left hand side seems a bit makeweight and distracts from the semaphore arm.

I'd be interested to know if you find yourself selecting your images so they fit in the landscape format you tend to choose for your site images? For example would you have considered cropping this image to focus on the right hand side as a portrait image? (I guess the portrait image would be more usual, hackneyed even, and this picture is definitely in your own strong recognisable style.) How would you feel about turning the camera round 90 degrees for a week say, or do you feel the landscape format is a strong element of your style? Or are you simply fitting your images into the presentation medium?

Do forgive the interrogation .....!

Nick

Hmmrrm! The contrast between the gray sky and the red "flag" is incrible, well and need I talk about the light?! ;-)

I like the composition of the shot, but I find that somehow the sky looks a little false, which to me is making the image seem more like something that has been assembled in photoshop than a straight photograph.

With regard to taking pictures in public, there is no law against shooting people in public places, whether they are children or not, as long as the pictures are not in themselves indecent. Unfortunately as this country continues to be gripped by Daily Mail inspired paedophile paranoia, the fact that there is no law against it won't stop you being the object of suspicion, possibly even by the police.

It is rather a sad indictment of our times, and sad as well for the medium. I've seen wonderful pictures by people like Cartier-Bresson of kids playing on the street, but I wonder now how many modern equivalents of those shots will never be taken because of modern sensibilities and universal mistrust.

More later, but in the meanwhile ...

"I don’t get it, actually - you want the school to be vigilant against perverts, but you don’t want them to act?"

There's a difference between vigilance and making pre-emptive assumptions. Had this guy been vigilant he would have seen me taking pictures of an old vacuum cleaner – I didn't once point my camera at the school or any of the children. What he did, as Matt (Perry) identifies, was follow a short series to steps – man, camera, children – and jump to a media-fuelled paranoid conclusion.

I have no problems with vigilance, indeed I expect it from those people who have care of my children, what I find somewhat troublesome is the automatic assumption that photography is necessarily problematic.

To me, this is a bit like recent attempts to ban photography on the NYC underground on the grounds of national security. And the argument "that surely this is a small price to pay" has probably been deployed in those circumstances too with equally problematic consequences.

Brad - Just to comment on what many others have pointed out, in the US you don't need permission to take pictures of anything. This includes police officers, buildings (whether public or private), and people in a public place.

It's important that the next time you're challenged by someone like that security guard that you stand up for your rights. You are not obligated to ever show your pictures, to give up your film or your equipment.

If the security guard threatens to call the police make sure you get his full name, his supervisor's name, etc. and call his bluff.

There's more information for you here:
http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html
and here:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
and for the UK:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

Thanks everyone, and while we seemed to get a bit side-tracked this was an interesting discussion.

Oh, and Brian, thanks for the link to the UK Photographer's Rights document, it was very interesting.

I happened in to this discussion a day late but I wanted to add my experience in Chicago. I was with my family at Millenium park in downtown Chicago taking shots around the park and minding my own business when my daughter informed me that I had a Chicago policeman following me around. I hadn't noticed before but after she mentioned it, he was staying very close and shadowing me. Twice that afternoon one of Chicago's finest stopped me and questioned what I was doing. Now, there were many, maybe hundreds, of other people taking pictures but I was the only one, at least that we noticed, that was stopped and questioned. The only reason we could come up with was that I had a tripod and was using a mamiya 645 medium format camera with winder grip, which is a small bit larger than a 35mm camera, and most other people were using the typical point and shoot digital cameras. I'm just glad they didn't confiscate the film.

David, I just hope you never have to refer to it. It seems like more and more photographers are being harrassed by rude and ill-informed security guards, and it's important that everyone knows that while no one can take their rights away from them, they can be voluntarily given away.

By the way, I love your site. The images your able to capture are truly amazing and inspiring.

"you're" not "your." Oops.